Podcast appearances and mentions of Robert Hooke

The script traces Finsbury Circus Gardens' transformation from medieval marshland north of London's wall—created as the Wallbrook's flow was impeded—into today's Grade II listed public garden and commercial centre. It recounts Roman burials, later use as a waste dump and tanning area, failed drainage and quarrying, and the successful draining in 1527. The site became home to Bethlehem Royal Hospital (“Bedlam”) in 1675–76, designed by Robert Hooke, before its demolition in 1814–15 and redevelopment as an elegant oval residential circus planned by George Dance and executed by William Montague (1815–17). It covers the area's religious institutions, a fatal 1825 construction accident, an unrealized radical monument to Rafael del Riego, its 19th-century medical quarter (including Moorfields Eye Hospital), later office redevelopment and key buildings like Lutyens' Britannic House and Derwent Wood's sculptures, public opening in 1900, and 2025 restoration after Crossrail works.Podcast show notes: londonguidedwalks.co.uk/podcast

What a pleasure it was to talk to Ruth Scurr, author of John Aubrey: My Own Life, about the great man himself, who was born four hundred years ago this month. Aubrey is best know for his splendid Brief Lives but he preserved a huge amount of knowledge which historians still rely on. There are many things we only know because of Aubrey—things about people Hobbes and Hooke, Stonehenge, architectural history. We also talked about Janet Malcom, the genre of biography, and modern fiction.HENRY OLIVER: Today I'm talking to Ruth Scurr. Ruth is a fellow of Gonville and Caius College in the University of Cambridge, where she specializes in the history of political thought. But more importantly, she is the biographer of John Aubrey, one of my favorite writers, who is celebrating 400 years of his birth this year. Ruth, hello.RUTH SCURR: Hi, Henry.OLIVER: Can you begin by giving us a brief life of John Aubrey?SCURR: So born in 1626, 17th-century antiquarian, collector, early fellow at the Royal Society. Well connected to scientific and the literary circles of his day. Someone who sees himself more as a whetstone: a person who could help sharpen other people's ideas. As a recorder, someone who treasured the details, the minutiae of the lives he encountered, and pass those details on to posterity.He's nonjudgmental, witty, kind, inventive. Very, very sociable. Very good friend. But he's hopeless at self-advancement. Begins his life as a gentleman, but he inherits debts from his father and he can never really achieve financial stability.Never marries, ends up homeless and worried about being arrested for his debts. And he has to sell his precious collection of books periodically through his life to raise some much-needed cash, but he keeps his manuscripts safe. And he does this at the end of his life by putting them into the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, afterwards known as the Bodleian, and where they still are today.OLIVER: So how many manuscripts did he save for us?SCURR: Of his own manuscripts or other people's manuscripts?OLIVER: Other people's. Because he was collecting all sorts of precious things.SCURR: Oh, absolutely. He was the person who, when someone died, would go round if he could to their house and ask what was happening about the manuscripts. He's particularly concerned, obviously, with his friends. So he had a close relationship with Robert Hooke and he wanted to make sure that Hooke's many inventions and scientific contributions were recorded.And he has this wonderful line in the life of Hooke where he says, “It's so hard to get people to do right by themselves.” And in his childhood, he had seen the fallout from the dissolution of the monasteries. He'd become very troubled by the habit of using manuscript pages which had been displaced in the dissolution. He saw them being used in schools to cover textbooks. He saw them being used to—or he heard about them at least being used—to wrap up gloves or to create stoppers in bottles. And this really troubled him from, from a very early age.And I think he has another beautiful line where he says after the dissolution of the monasteries, whereas these manuscripts had been kept safe, they flew around like butterflies. And he wanted to catch them and preserve them and to stop people letting the papers and the precious manuscripts of their relatives do the same. So he was very instrumental in rescuing manuscripts, other people's manuscripts. And then fortunately with his own, he knew Ashmole and they had the shared astrology interest.Ashmole was a very different sort of person who basically said to Oxford, look, I'll give you my collections, but there has to be a museum for them. And luckily Aubrey was able to use that museum as a safe place for his own manuscripts.OLIVER: So we know things about Robert Hooke and Thomas Hobbes and all these other luminaries of the 17th century, thanks to Aubrey. What else do we know, thanks to him?SCURR: We know what Stonehenge looked like in his day because he was a very good draftsman. He drew pictures of Stonehenge. He'd grown up in Wiltshire, he'd known those stones from childhood. He understood that Avebury nearby was a comparable monument, and he took Charles II to see it, and persuaded the king to get the locals to stop breaking up the stones, to reuse the stones, which was the practice.He also made drawings of windows because he was possibly the first person as a historian of architecture to realize that you could date buildings by the style of their windows. So we have those drawings. He was also interested in the history of costume. He did a survey of Surrey, of Wiltshire.So these are all sort of focuses in his manuscripts and people who've used them come to really appreciate how pioneering Aubrey was. But of course he doesn't finish them. He doesn't publish those manuscripts. So it's very easy really to overlook the innovation and the contribution and the wonderful imagination that he had.OLIVER: You mean if he'd published a book, he would have a much bigger reputation?SCURR: Well, I think there's two things. Yes, but in a sense, you know, the Brief Lives have been published after his death in various forms. But I think one of the most engaging things about Aubrey is that he's a modest and self-effacing person. And I already mentioned the idea he had of himself as a whetstone to other people's talents.There aren't that many people—certainly not in my life, maybe there are in yours—but who would effortlessly describe themselves as a whetstone to other people's talents. Most people want to be at the center. They're happy to have clever and literary friends, but they want a place there at the table as well.And Aubrey really was very, very invested in helping other people to do right by themselves, as he said about Hooke. And he very movingly—this is one of the inspirations really for my book that I wrote about him—he spent all that time collating the information about other people's lives. And for his own life, he puts down a few lines, a couple of facts and everything.He says, well, this could be used as the binding of a book. You know, it's sort of waste paper really. So he doesn't write his own life. Other people's lives he's going to convey to posterity. He doesn't see his own life as really being at that level of needing the attention that he gave, for example, to Milton or to Harvey or Hobbes, as you mentioned.OLIVER: He's born the year after Charles I comes to the throne. So he obviously lives through a fairly terrible period of history and very tumultuous, changeable in lots of different ways. The new world, the new learning, new religion, new politics, everything is changing. And he's obsessed with the old ways. How did these historical events—is he reacting against his time? Is he just born in a lucky time in a way?SCURR: So he was a student in Oxford during the Civil War. And you are right. The upheaval is very disturbing for his generation. It means he gets called back from Oxford by his father because it's dangerous to be there. And he's really, really upset by that because, it's like us, when we were students or our students today. You finally get away from your family and there you are in this place with all these exciting peers and access to books that you've never had before or at least to that extent, libraries, et cetera.And suddenly there's a war on and you've got to go home. So there's that disturbance. Then there is the fact that actually he was close to Hobbes. Hobbes actually was a Malmesbury man, so Wiltshire, very near Aubrey. And had come back to visit the school where Hobbes had been, which was where Aubrey was at school. And so they had met in Aubrey's childhood, and then he would've been aware of Hobbes having to go into exile. And then Hobbes coming back, of course. And that's a very important time in his life.And it's not an accident that Hobbes asks Aubrey to write his life because Hobbes knows how careful Aubrey is. And he knows that Aubrey has information that he can convey in the life. So that is really the first life that he writes. And it's different from the others. There's a different sort of origin. And it's after he's done that, that he starts to think, well, actually, you know, I can think of at least 50, 55 other people's lives. And now I've got my hand in, I might start on those as well.So in that period of upheaval there are wonderful stories. Maybe we'll look at some of the Brief Lives, but there's this amazing story that he captures in the life of William Harvey, which is a description of Harvey having been at the battlefield in Edgehill and recording one of the people who had been fighting and wounded, surviving by having the good sense to pull a dead body on top of himself, to keep himself warm on the battlefield. Things like that, which make the war very much alive. This is brutal, this civil war. It's a long time ago and we think we passed over it, but the really brutal reality of war is captured in the Brief Lives through the anecdotes and the stories of that generation that Aubrey preserves.OLIVER: How English is he?SCURR: Well, as opposed to what?OLIVER: Welsh.SCURR: Okay. Well he goes to Wales often and is very interested in Wales. I think he sees himself as English. I think he's very invested in English customs and stories and people. He's not nationalistic in any sense like that. What he's interested in is the inherited ways of living.And he's very interested in language and different dialects. That's one of the other things; he starts to collect different words. He was very aware of the Cornish dialect, for example. So I'd say it's a very decentered England that's rooted in customs, traditions, inherited stories.And there's a big place there for both the future and the past. Huge excitement about The Royal Society, English science, what can be achieved through the sharing of knowledge. But again, Aubrey's not an insular person in that respect. So, he wished he could go on the Grand Tour when he was a student. He would really have loved to have done that. It's one of the things that he actually talked to Harvey about, going and traveling as his contemporaries, for example, John Evelyn did.But Aubrey actually says—this is very typical of Aubrey—that his mother persuaded him out of it. His mother didn't want him going off on the Grand Tour. She was afraid for him. And he regretted it later in life. But it's so typical of Aubrey that he would pay attention to his mother and her anxieties.OLIVER: This interest in the present and the past—so he loves all the history, but he's in the Royal Society. One thing I like in your book is the way he talks about, oh, my grandfather still dresses in the old ways, like he's an Elizabethan, but at the same time he's doing a very sort of Baconian project. He's influenced by Bacon. Is Aubrey a sort of paradox? Does this make sense in a way?SCURR: Only in so far as lots of other people are as well. I was just looking at the Harvey life, and there's a story there about how when Harvey was a student he was meant to be setting sail with some friends. And he's stopped and told, “No, you can't get on this boat. You have to wait.” And he says, “Well, what have I done wrong? Why can't I get on this boat?” He said, “No, honestly, we need to have a word with you. You are not going on the boat.” And then the boat sinks, everyone dies. And this is apparently because the guy who stopped him had a dream that he needed to stop Harvey going. Harvey told Aubrey that story.Harvey also is—as Aubrey sort of slightly inaccurately puts it, is the inventor of the circulation of the blood. And you think, well, that's going a little bit far, perhaps not actually the inventor, but certainly the first person to discover, to understand about circulating blood.So there's another example of someone's life includes, I wouldn't be alive unless somebody had had this premonition and dream that I was about to die. Which is from a completely different world, from the rational, scientific understanding of the body or the other scientific advances that are going on at the time.OLIVER: And Aubrey's happy to just sort of coexist with both of those because of his interest in astrology?SCURR: And not just astrology. He's very interested in astrology and nativities, as he called it. In some of the Brief Lives, you see the sort of recording of the information that would be needed to cast an astrological shape for the life.But he is also interested in the fact that people believe in fairies and ghosts. He doesn't look down on those beliefs. Nor does he say that he necessarily believes in the presence of fairies or the interventions of the supernatural. But he's got a very open mind in relation to that. And certainly being simultaneously interested in early astronomy and astrology together is, to us, very striking. But then I think it was much more normal.OLIVER: Why do you think he resisted ordination?SCURR: Because he said the cassock stinks. He considered ordination several times because he knew it would be a living, it would be a way of being able to have some income, probably not very onerous duties. Some of his friends say to him, “Come on, Aubrey, it really won't be that much work. You'll just get a curate who'll do it all, and you'll get the living, and then you won't have to be worrying all the time about your paycheck. You haven't got a paycheck. It would be a living coming to you.”And on one occasion, one of the reasons he gives for not doing that is he thinks well, what if there's another religious upheaval and I have to change sides again? What if Roman Catholicism comes back and I ended up on the wrong side of it?And, again, would it really have been that difficult to go with the flow? But I think, in his own way, he had found his way of living, which was intensely sociable. And perhaps he didn't want that constraint of being a member of the clergy around him.OLIVER: Do you think he was a nonbeliever?SCURR: Well. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think so at all. I think he probably was a straightforward Christian believer. I think perhaps he'd seen enough of the religious conflicts and wars to be afraid of fanaticism on both sides. And that would fit certainly with his relationship with Hobbes.I don't have any reason to think he's an atheist. He's got a beautiful way of writing about death and there's this wonderful line he has when he says, “God bless you and me in our in and out world.” So the fact that we refer to his works as the Brief Lives because they're short, but everybody's life is brief.And even those who live, as he did, into his 70s, it feels brief. And there's these very moving descriptions of him at funerals. I was thinking about this the other day because he often records where someone's buried. And I recently wrote my first entry for the Dictionary of National Biography. I did the one for Hilary Mantel, which was a great honor and extremely interesting.And when I came back to the Brief Lives, I thought, gosh, I wish I'd put at the end of that DNB entry where she's actually buried, that would've made sense to do that. And I didn't do it because the DNB is quite formalized; they've got their formula and you need to stick to it.But maybe I'll add it in. Because it seems to me very moving to record where people are actually buried. That would fit I think with her religious sensibility, with a regard for the afterlife, and with the rites of passage at the end of life.OLIVER: What is it that makes Aubrey such a good biographer?SCURR: So I think the modesty that is in his spirit, the noticing, the minutiae that he both notices and values and his wit. He has a sensitivity to these funny and revealing quirky stories about the people that he knows. Or he finds them in the stories he's told by people who did know them.There's an eyewitness account aspect to it as well. Or at least it's an oral history. “I was told this by . . .” He's extremely precise. He'll try to assemble the facts so far as he can, and then he'll tell you what people's close friends said about them, and he will do so very, very carefully so that you know this is a story that he's been told that he's passing on.And then he doesn't pass moral judgment. He doesn't adjudicate. And finally, he thinks of himself as doing all of this for posterity and that posterity, i.e. us or the people who come after us, will find things there and he's not going to tell them what to find. He's not going to shape the life and say, this is what you should think about it.He will give you the raw materials, he'll give you the stories, he'll give you a flavor of the details of the life, and then posterity can look there and can see, for example, the disagreements between Hobbes and Isaac Newton. There are people who've written lives of Hooke and Newton. And there are people who've written lives and you can be team Newton or team Hooke. Interestingly, Aubrey is team Hooke. He doesn't write a life of Newton. And he wants, as I said, to do well by Hooke. But his way of doing that isn't to say Mr.Hooke was fantastic and Newton robbed him of lots of his ideas. He says, let me show you, let me assemble and make a catalog, if I can, of all these hundreds of contributions that Hooke made.OLIVER: When did you discover Aubrey?SCURR: So I discovered Aubrey because I was reviewing for the LRB, The Biographer's Tale, and I had come across a really interesting—and it's still in the introduction to my book—a really interesting reflection on the difference between Aubrey and Lytton Strachey, a reflection made by Anthony Powell, and I had quoted it or alluded to it in my review. And I had gone and started to read Aubrey as a result of that. So I was led to it through reviewing, via Anthony Powell, and then into the Brief Lives.But then another very strange thing happened, which is I met for the very first time, Janet Malcolm, who is someone who became very important in my life. And because she knew or had been told that I'd written this review, she read the review before we met. And she said to me, she said, “Ruth, I read your review”—and I doubt Janet Malcolm was a massive fan of A.S. Byatt, to be absolutely honest. We never really discussed that further, but she said, “I read your review and I was really interested in this Aubrey. I was so interested in what you quoted about Aubrey and the difference between his biographical approach and Lytton Strachey.”And then it sort of stuck in my mind and suddenly as I was coming toward the end of my first book, which was a totally different book on Robespierre and the French Revolution, I just knew I wanted to write about Aubrey. And I think at the time my then-husband really thought I'd gone mad actually, because you're not supposed to do that, are you?I mean, you're supposed to stick in your period and certainly build on it. So, you know, a book on Marra or even Napoleon would've been okay, that would've made sense. But to circle back to the 17th century and write about Aubrey seemed extremely eccentric.OLIVER: Well, what was Janet Malcolm like?SCURR: Oh, Janet was absolutely wonderful. She has this reputation of being sort of terrifying. And, of course, I was extremely interested in her forensic examination of biography which we had very interesting conversations about. She was a deeply kind person, extremely nurturing of younger writers, and extremely funny as well.That's the other thing that you don't associate with her sometimes from this sort of public image of a very austere interviewer, The Journalist and the Murderer, In the Freud Archives, et cetera. Actually, she was a really warm and extremely witty person.OLIVER: A lot of historians don't think biography is real history. Why do you take biography seriously?SCURR: Well, Michael Holroyd writes Works on Paper—and I love Michael Holroyd so much. And he has this wonderful line—I won't remember it exactly—but it's about biography being the b*****d offspring of history and the novel, and both are ashamed of it.And I think some of those distinctions actually have broken down. I know lots of historians who are very interested in biographical writing. I think it depends. There are certain historical schools that maybe are not so interested in lives.And to be fair, the history of ideas is—which I belong to, and in a sense I'm a rebel from—is one of those. I remember there coming a point where I had spent so much time thinking about the constitutional ideas for the representative republic in the middle of the French Revolution, that actually the French Revolution could have been happening on Mars for all it mattered about the actual sequence of events. What mattered was the structure of the ideas.And it's difficult because the school I belong to in Cambridge wants to put the ideas into context all the time. But again, by context you don't really mean people's lives; more the discourses and the conversations and the ideas of the time that are the landscape, the intellectual landscape, if you like.So I rebelled at a certain point and I was like, well, you know, I'm actually going to go through the revolution day by day because that period is short. And I think it really matters, the lived experience there. I think many, many history books quote Aubrey with enormous respect and say, “as Aubrey says,” or, “according to Aubrey,” and pull those details forwards.I suppose some history is quite instrumental in its use of biography, so it wants to draw the reader in with a few anecdotes and a little bit of what does somebody wear on their head? And who was their first love, that kind of thing. But it's perhaps not very engaged with the real work of trying to capture the shape or the feel of a life.OLIVER: And of a temperament, right? I think one thing biography gives us is that sense that a lot of these big decisions or events in history are quite temperamental. As well as being based in ideas and events.SCURR: Oh, yeah. Absolutely.OLIVER: Your life of Aubrey, at one point you tried to write as a novel.SCURR: Yeah. I had to stop that quite fast.OLIVER: Why?SCURR: Because Aubrey is too important. I didn't want to make up things for him. As someone who's come right up to that line of the history and the novel, I do think it's very clear to be on one side or the other. And again, going back to Hilary Mantel, she wrote those wonderful Reith Lectures on historical fiction.And, like her, I think that it's not about ignoring the facts or embellishing the facts. It is about the gaps. It's about imagining what isn't in the record and should have been, and trying to reconstruct that inside the novel. But at the time, I felt that the gaps with Aubrey didn't actually matter that much.There was so much there that I could pull together to give a sense of him and his sensibility. Now actually, scholars in this field will all be very, very keen to advance our knowledge of those gaps. And that's wonderful. You know, what exactly was Aubrey doing when he visited France? You know, at the time I wrote my book that seemed very unclear.I think my colleague in Oxford, Kate Bennett, knows that now and will write her own biography. And she will fill in many of these gaps that I sort of happily included in the form that I'd found for his life because giving him that first person voice, I was able to focus on the evidence that I thought had been very underused at that point.OLIVER: Now Kate Bennett did a wonderful edition of the Brief Lives with lots of excellent footnotes and investigations. And you wrote that it gave us a new understanding of Aubrey.SCURR: Absolutely. And of the lives themselves. And Kate and I got to know each other and became friends while we were both writing our books. And people we knew before we met were very keen to sort of set us against each other. So they would wind us up. I would meet someone and they'd say, “Ruth, there you are. You've written a book about the French Revolution and now you are going to write a book about Aubrey. But don't you know there is a scholar in Oxford who spent her entire academic life working on Aubrey?” And it built up a picture of fear that you shouldn't trespass on somebody else's ground.And then people would do a sort of reverse thing to her that they would say, “Oh, Kate, gosh, you've been working a long time on Aubrey and where is your Clarendon edition after all? And did you know there's somebody in Cambridge who's going to write this popular book about Aubrey?”Anyway, finally we met at a conference and we really actually just liked each other and we decided it's fine. I was doing my thing. She's doing something very different. And we became friends, and I see that as a triumph over a sort of more traditional, maybe even dare I say, male and territorial approach to academic life and to knowledge in general actually.OLIVER: Yeah. Because the two books are great complements to each other. They're not rivalrous in that sense.SCURR: Absolutely not. Kate's book, it's not just an addition. It's as much as you can ever do. It's a reconstruction of the manuscript as Aubrey left it and intended it with all the gaps and the notes to himself to fill this in. And his changes of mind and his deletions and all of that. And so it's an astonishing thing. Because it's not just a copy of it. It takes you in, it helps you understand what he was intending with those collections, as you called them, my pretty collections.And so that edition that she had been working on for a very long time came out in 2015, the same year as my book came out. And it felt like an amazing year for Aubrey. And now, we'll be celebrating the 400th anniversary of his birth. But that year, 2015, was a very special, obviously for us, but I think for Aubrey more broadly.OLIVER: How much of an influence has Aubrey had on English biography?SCURR: As we know, there's the huge influence in terms of “Aubrey says.” Open any book on the 17th century, and it will be “Aubrey says,” “according to Aubrey,” et cetera. So a huge influence in that respect. With regard to the actual form, I think it's very, very pervasive and important, and we have to look at it very carefully.I mentioned earlier the very important difference between what Aubrey does and what Lytton Strachey did. There are some similarities in so far as Strachey will go for the vivid detail. He give you these powerful anecdotes. But actually he spins them as well.And that's what Anthony Powell so brilliantly showed. And the example was of Francis Bacon, the life of Francis Bacon who Aubrey has a description of Bacon right at the end of his life, the circumstances leading up to Bacon's death where he is on Highgate Hill and he decides to conduct an experiment to see if snow will preserve a chicken or a hen as well as salt. So he is stuffing this carcass of the hen with snow. Catches a cold, ends up having to stay with a friend, sleeps in a bed that hasn't been aired for a long time, and dies. And that's the end of Lord Bacon.So Aubrey gives us all this, and then along comes Lytton Strachey. And he takes it, and he says an old man disgraced, shattered, alone on Highgate Hill, stuffing a dead foul with snow, which makes it sound like he's lost his mind at the end of his life. And then Anthony Powell examined that and he said, look, the story of stuffing the hen with snow is Aubrey's.Bacon was certainly an old man at the time of the incident. He was disgraced. He may have been shattered. No doubt at times he was alone. But Aubrey's story of stuffing the foul on Highgate Hill shows Bacon accompanied by the king's physician, conducting a serious experiment to test the preservative properties of snow and, on becoming indisposed, finding accommodation in the house of the Earl of Arundel.And so you take that same story and, as Anthony Powell says, you combine the story, the fragment preserved by Aubrey with some epithets, and you convey an oblique point. It's a biographical method for actually building up a picture of the person. And it really matters what you do with those fragments.So I think the fact that Aubrey is pretty pure about this, he gives you the fragments and another biographer might come along and think, okay, what's going on here with Venetia Stanley and dying in her bed after drinking Viper wine? Let's build up a story about that. And there was a rumor at the time that her husband had murdered her, et cetera. Aubrey doesn't comment. He just gives you the fragment. And I think afterwards, people have not only used the fragments in their own work, but they've also developed a technique of working up those fragments into whatever picture you decide as a biographer you are going to draw.OLIVER: Now as well as a historian, you are a literary critic. You review novels. You are a Hilary Mantel admirer. Who else among the modern fiction writers do you admire?SCURR: Amongst the modern fiction writers? I'm getting quite old, Henry. Lots of my people are dead now. Alice Monroe is someone I'm extremely interested in. Hilary Manel, obviously, Beryl Bainbridge, Penelope Fitzgerald. And I love the fact Penelope Fitzgerald was a biographer simultaneously with becoming a novelist.And I was thinking back to this actually, that Charlotte Mew and Her Friends—that's the title. And then the Anthony Powell is John Aubrey and His Friends. And I was thinking, is there something about these people who have a lot of friends and the biographical genre? It's interesting.In terms of younger people writing, I just read a wonderful short story by Gwendoline Riley in the latest Paris Review. “A–Z” it's called—very disturbing. Very, very good story. And Gwendoline has a novel coming out later this year, which I shall read with enormous interest. It's going to be called Palm House. I absolutely revered George Saunders, although I haven't yet read Vigil. I'm only on Substack for George Saunders and you Henry. That's it, basically.OLIVER: That shows very good taste.SCURR: Very good taste. Yeah. And a couple of others. My friend Danielle Allen's The Renovator, I also subscribe to, but very few. But George Saunders wrote a wonderful post on his Substack about maybe a year and a half, maybe more even ago, about how he found the solution to the beginning of Lincoln in the Bardo. And he wanted to find a way to tell the story of the death of Lincoln's son. It's so typical of him—and I love this—he said he didn't want the ghosts. He knew it was going to be narrated by the ghosts in the morgue. And he couldn't have them coming home one evening saying, “Oh, you know, I just popped over the wall and had a look in through the White House window. And guess what I saw?” So how was he going to get the voices in?And then he said he'd got these extracts from the letters and from the literature that he needed. And he ended up putting them all on the floor and thinking, what order shall I put them in? And that reminded me of when I was struggling to find a way to write about Aubrey. I suddenly had the idea that I could just put them as diary entries without comment.I would sort of curate these entries and things like that. So, that was a very interesting moment for me about sort of the construction and the choices that go in both to writing a novel and to writing, in my case, a sort of experimental biography.OLIVER: So Hilary Mantel, Lincoln in the Bardo, Penelope Fitzgerald, Beryl Bainbridge—there's a lot of historical fiction here. This is the genre you most enjoy. It's been a sort of golden age for historical fiction.SCURR: But those people aren't just historical fiction writers. It's very important. They have all written historical fiction, but actually they write other novels as well. It doesn't matter the order in their careers, they go in and out of it. So I would say that actually it's those people as writers and sensibilities that attract me.Anita Brookner is another example. I love Anita Brookner's novels. I also love her book on David, the revolutionary painter, that she wrote—Jacques-Louis David—that's a fantastic book. So there's a sense in which I see them as writers and the genre of historical fiction, you are right, it does cut across, but I don't think that's what I'm following. I think I'm following what I find on the page from a particular sensibility and of course a command of language, which is in all of those cases, absolutely extraordinary.OLIVER: Because they're all quite innovative as historical novelists as well. And it's not the main part of what is recognized as their achievement in a way.SCURR: No, no.OLIVER: It's been quietly a second great period of the historical novel. It seems crazy to say Hilary Mantel is our Walter Scott, but that is quite high praise.SCURR: So I think you deal much more definitely than I do with these sort of epoch-defining ideas. I think I'm just more intermittently focused on particular things that I like. I used to do an enormous amount of reviewing. I've had to stop it because—talk about being the whetstone.I was constantly reviewing when I was in my 30s and much of my 40s actually. And I don't regret it in the least. And one of the reasons I don't regret it, especially with novels, was because I would never have read all those novels if I hadn't been reviewing them.And even some of the nonfiction, I wouldn't. But here's an example: Because I'd been reviewing so much, I ended up quite early 2007, becoming a Booker judge. And part of that process is that anyone who's been on the list before they automatically get entered by the publisher—McEwen and Barnes, et cetera. Fine.And then the publisher can put forward two books they choose and they can be anything. And then they assemble a list of so-called call-ins. And those are the books where the publisher says, “Oh, please, please call this in. I mean, we didn't make it one of our two, but we think it's absolutely amazing and you must read it.” And you think, well, if it's so amazing, what were you doing not making it one of your two. But anyway, whatever, we call it in. And on that call-in list there was actually, Anne Enright's novel, The Gathering, and that ended up winning the year I was a judge.And I knew Anne Enright's writing because I had reviewed several of her earlier books, especially one called What Are You Like?, which is quite obscure. It's not the book people think of when they think about Anne Enright. But I knew because I'd done all that time in the reviewing trenches, as it were, how extraordinary Anne Enright is as a writer. And we were able to say, well, absolutely go ahead and call this in. And then sure enough it won.OLIVER: What about biography? Modern biography? You like Michael Holroyd?SCURR: Well, we've already talked about Janet Malcolm. She's a sort of anti-biographer in some respect, sort of subversive of the entire genre. I very much like and respect Antonia Fraser's historical biographies and especially her one of Marie Antoinette which, again, came out very close to when my Robespierre book came out. And it's like seeing the other side of the story and that was absolutely extraordinary.And one of the biographies I go back to over and over again I'm extremely interested in Virginia Woolf. You are obviously a fan with The Common Reader. I was looking at it, preparing for this, that she's got this absolutely hilarious short biography of John Evelyn, and it is called Rambling Round Evelyn. Do you know it?OLIVER: Yes.SCURR: It's so beautifully constructed. It's got the butterflies landing on the dahlias pretty much throughout the actual text of the short biography. But then it's got this brilliant bit where she sort of makes fun of John Evelyn. And she says, the difference between then and now is, if we saw a red admiral, we would admire it, but we wouldn't—and this is very mean of her—we wouldn't rush into the kitchen and get a kitchen knife in order to dissect the red admiral's head. Right? It's so ridiculous and it so makes fun of Evelyn.I was listening to the podcast you made with Hermione Lee. And Hermione was saying that she thought what made Woolf such a good critic was that she was very empathetic. But I also think she's capable of that kind of sharp, wicked distance as well, where she goes, I see you, John Evelyn, you are so proud of your garden, and you're actually—looked at from my point of view—a bit of an idiot in some respects as well.OLIVER: I like her because she's so judgmental, which is not a very popular thing to say, but she is. She is really capable of saying that, you know, as long as prose will be read, Addison will be read. But on the other hand, he's boring and rambling and not very good in many ways. Absolutely cutting.SCURR: No, totally, totally. Yeah.OLIVER: What about some of the sort of big names: Richard Holmes, Claire Tomalin?SCURR: Yeah. Oh, Claire, absolutely. I mean, goodness, they've been such influences on me, both of them. Absolutely Richard and his Footsteps and then of course, and those other books, The Ratters of Lightning Ridge and then The Age of Wonder. That's so important, so wonderful.Claire, I revere, I loved and still recommend to my students her book on Mary Wollstonecraft. I also, by the way, love Virginia Woolf's essay on Mary Wollstonecraft. I think that's a different sort of thing where Woolf describes Mary Wollstonecraft pursuing her lover like a dolphin. She won't let him go. He thought he'd hooked a minnow. He wasn't expecting a dolphin to come after him. It was Mary Wollstonecraft. So, Claire Tomalin, her Peyps, Hardy, absolutely hugely important books and deeply, deeply humane actually.And that's the other thing, I think biography, by definition, you do get the sharpness of Woolf or Strachey, but I think to put someone else's life at the center of your book, that's a humane act. It's to say, no, I'm going to spend this number years of my life preserving and communicating this other person's life. And that's a very wonderful thing to do.OLIVER: What do you think of the sort of standard criticism of biography, that it's just not accurate enough? So, for example, Austen Scholars will point to various things in the Tomalin biography where she's deleted the facts or said things to make the narrative flow, but it's just not really accurate enough. The novelistic tendency overwhelms the historical one or whatever. You've obviously avoided that with various decisions you made in the Aubrey book, but as a genre.SCURR: I'd never say that. That would be a real hostage to fortune, wouldn't it?OLIVER: Well, you know what I mean?SCURR: And saying, look at, look at this—OLIVER: Page 28.SCURR: —at this piece of nonsense you introduced. Well, accuracy is extremely important. What I think about that is it all contributes to knowledge. If someone comes along and finds a mistake or wants to bring in some other evidence—And actually Kate Bennett, she does this with Aubrey as well. She says that, oh, Aubrey's really got this wrong, or he's gotten in a muddle about that. She's not saying, and therefore let's just chuck it out because it's inaccurate. You need to see this as well as that. So I think of it more as a collaborative relationship about adding to knowledge and if somebody corrects a previous book or previous claim or something, or point something, then that's fine actually.Again, going back to Holroyd, he thought that that biography was an art form constrained by the facts. So he's got a place for art in it. And I know what he means by that. And I think ultimately that's probably why I couldn't write a novel about a biographical subject because of being constrained by the facts. And yet Hilary Mantel has written many historical novels that are absolutely constrained by the facts. It's just what they're doing besides the facts, alongside the facts. So perhaps some people are going to come along and contribute other information and other people will come along and contribute some imaginative answer to the whole. And both are fine. I think we should be liberal broad church here.OLIVER: Is the genre dying?SCURR: Not so far as I'm aware. We are always doing this about genres dying, aren't we? Those things are always dying.OLIVER: People talk about biography dying a lot.SCURR: Well, perhaps they do. I haven't been listening to that. Why do they say it's dying?OLIVER: Because you can't sell these 700-page lives of people.SCURR: We can't sell most books. I mean, if we're going to go buy sales . . .OLIVER: This, yeah. Well, this story in The Times recently as well, that all the nonfiction that sells now is trash and that the serious books aren't there. And the whole civilization's dying routine.SCURR: Well if it is, we just have to carry on doing what we are doing.OLIVER: Yeah. What do you think is going to be the future of biography? Because I think more than a lot of other nonfiction genres, it's so changeable, it's so flexible. If you look at any decade, you see so much variety in structure and form. What do you think is coming next?SCURR: I'm like Aubrey; I think that's going to be for posterity to decide. As long as there are human beings, we will tell stories and we will want to tell stories about ourselves, and we will want to tell stories about the people we have loved and or hated, or the people who we think matter, for whatever reason, in science, in art, in literature. There will always be a need for the story of the human life.I think it will inevitably change enormously in ways that we couldn't possibly imagine. Just as Aubrey knew that he couldn't possibly imagine what posterity was going to make of the information that he had collected, and he didn't think that was something that he should be constrained by. He thought it was about passing it on.OLIVER: And what will Ruth Scurr do next?SCURR: I'll ask her. I think she's supposed to be writing about Rousseau and is very excited about that, but has been massively distracted by the Royal Society of Literature and becoming chair of that. So, I'm trying to pull myself back into my project. And I was very excited actually, because again, when I was looking at The Common Reader I saw Woolf refer to the Montaigne, Pepys, and Rousseau as people who had provided these spectacular portraits of themselves. And I was very excited by that. So I'm going to write a book about Rousseau and his time in England.OLIVER: Very exciting. I look forward to it. Ruth Scurr, author of John Aubrey: My Own Life, thank you very much.SCURR: Thank you, Henry. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

Conférence par Thomas Lecuit, titulaire de la chaire Dynamiques du vivant au Collège de FranceLe Collège de France et la BnF proposent un cycle de conférences scientifiques s'appuyant sur des documents exceptionnels issus des collections patrimoniales. Quatre professeurs du Collège de France évoqueront l'histoire des sciences au travers de leurs affinités personnelles avec de grands textes. Ils en proposeront une lecture à la croisée de leurs goûts intimes, de leur imaginaire et de leur pratique de la recherche. Thomas Lecuit, titulaire de la chaire Dynamiques du vivant au Collège de France, est l'invité de la première séance de cette deuxième édition. Le « dévoilement » du vivant est le résultat d'un parcours historique. Le vivant est à la fois sous nos yeux, évident, mais si mystérieux dans son fonctionnement qu'une longue quête fut et est encore nécessaire pour en percer l'énigme. Il s'agira de discerner ce qui le relève du visible et de l'invisible dans la démarche du chercheur.Séance enregistrée le 4 novembre 2025 à la BnF I François-Mitterrand. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

The Season 10 Brawl episode had to be epic and this doesn't disappoint. Maggie and Brynna bring you part one of a three-part brawl that involves one guy with two (at least) nemeses. Don't miss the conclusion to this story in episodes 14 and 15 later this season!Fin us on Patreon: patreon.com/bainscienceFeatured BAs: Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke

====================================================SUSCRIBETEhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNpffyr-7_zP1x1lS89ByaQ?sub_confirmation=1==================================================== DEVOCIÓN MATUTINA PARA JÓVENES 2025“HOY ES TENDENCIA”Narrado por: Daniel RamosDesde: Connecticut, USAUna cortesía de DR'Ministries y Canaan Seventh-Day Adventist Church===================|| www.drministries.org ||===================13 de SeptiembreEn hombros de gigantes«Mientras llego, ocúpate en la lectura». 1 Timoteo 4: 13, RVC¿Quién es el científico más prominente de la historia? Posiblemente, te lleguen a la mente nombres como Stephen Hawking o Marie Curie, aunque quizás el científico más famoso de los últimos cien años es sin duda Albert Einstein. Pero el galardón al científico más importante de la historia se lo lleva otra persona. Alguien que sentó las bases sobre las que Einstein «construyó» su teoría de la relatividad general. Me refiero a Sir Isaac Newton, quien formuló las leyes de la mecánica clásica y la ley de la gravitación universal e inventó el cálculo.A pesar de su incomparable genio, Newton supo reconocer que había aprendido de otros. En una carta a Robert Hooke fechada en 1676, Isaac Newton escribió: «Si he llegado a ver más lejos que otros es porque me subí a hombros de gigantes». Sin embargo, esta frase no es original de Newton, sino de Juan de Salisbury, que escribió en el siglo XII que «somos como enanos sentados sobre los hombros de gigantes para ver más cosas que ellos y ver más lejos, no porque nuestra visión sea más aguda o nuestra estatura mayor, sino porque podemos elevarnos más alto gracias a su estatura de gigantes».¿Quieres crecer y llegar lejos en esta vida? La mejor forma de lograrlo es subir a hombros de gigantes mediante la lectura. ¿Por qué? Porque el crecimiento intelectual no sucede en el vacío, es un esfuerzo colectivo y continuo de muchas generaciones. La lectura te permite acceder al conocimiento acumulado de la humanidad y aprender de los que te han precedido. También amplía tu mente y te motiva a pensar por ti mismo y a desarrollar la creatividad.La lectura, especialmente de las Escrituras, también tiene grandes beneficios espirituales. No hay nada más efectivo para mejorar tu relación con Dios que leer la Palabra, pues mediante ella podrás subir a hombros de gigantes espirituales. Aprenderás a de la humildad de Moisés, de la valentía de David, de la sabiduría de Salomón y sobre todo, del amor de Jesús. Por eso no me sorprende que hace casi dos milenios Pablo le aconsejó a Timoteo: «Mientras llego, ocúpate de la lectura» (1 Timoteo 4:13). ¿Quieres crecer y ampliar tus horizontes? ¡Súbete a los hombros de los gigantes! 

We're gonna go ahead and apologize in advance for any stumbles through this one. Sir Isaac Newton possessed a kind of brilliance that is very hard for the majority of people to really wrapped their heads around, and that includes us. Known as the Father of Modern Physics he didn't just help shape our understanding of the science of the natural world (not nature but the laws that govern nature, gravity, optics, movement, etc) but he deciphered a lot of the mysteries within it. He developed calculus because the math of his time wouldn't help him solve the questions he had. He discovered that light is made of a spectrum of colors that exist at all times even if we can't see them, and he revolutionized the understanding of gravity and planetary rotation. He was also human, who suffered from human flaws, vindictiveness being a pretty evident one.  But as with most genius there can be a mania that lies beneath. Join us as we get Historically High on the smartest man we've covered to date.Support the show

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Mientras trabajaba en el Observatorio Vaticano durante la oposición de Marte en 1858, el astrónomo italiano Angelo Secchi notó una gran característica triangular de color azul, a la que él llamó el «Escorpión Azul». Esta misma formación nubosa estacional fue vista por el astrónomo inglés Joseph Norman Lockyer en 1862, y ha sido vista por otros observadores. Durante la oposición de 1862, el astrónomo holandés Frederik Kaiser se dedicó a hacer dibujos de Marte. Al comparar sus ilustraciones con las de Huygens y el filósofo natural inglés Robert Hooke, pudo refinar aún más el período de rotación de Marte. Su valor de 24 horas 37 minutos y 22'6 segundos es preciso dentro de una décima de segundo. En agosto de 1877, el astrónomo estadounidense Asaph Hall descubrió las dos lunas de Marte utilizando un telescopio de 660 mm en el Observatorio Naval de los Estados Unidos.​ Los nombres de los dos satélites, Fobos y Deimos, fueron escogidos por Hall basado en una sugerencia de Henry Madan, un instructor de ciencias en el Eton College en Inglaterra. Durante la oposición de 1877, el astrónomo italiano Giovanni Schiaparelli utilizó un telescopio de 22 cms para ayudar a producir el primer mapa detallado de Marte. Estos mapas contenían características notables a las que llamó canali, que más tarde se demostró que eran una ilusión óptica. Estos canali eran supuestamente rectas largas en la superficie de Marte a las que dio nombres de ríos famosos de la Tierra. Su término canali fue mal traducido en inglés como canales. En 1886, el astrónomo inglés William Frederick Denning observó que estas características lineales eran de naturaleza irregular y mostraban concentraciones e interrupciones. En 1895, el astrónomo inglés Edward Walter Maunder se convenció de que las características lineales eran meramente la suma de muchos detalles más pequeños. Camille Flammarion escribió en su obra La Planète Mars et Ses Conditions d'Habitabilité de 1892, acerca de cómo estos canales se asemejaban a los canales artificiales, y que una raza inteligente podría usarlos para redistribuir el agua a través de un mundo marciano agonizante. Abogó por la existencia de tales habitantes, y sugirió que podían ser más avanzados que los humanos. Comenzando 1901, el astrónomo estadounidense A. E. Douglass intentó fotografiar las características de los canales de Marte. Estos esfuerzos parecían tener éxito cuando el astrónomo estadounidense Carl O. Lampland publicó fotografías de los supuestos canales en 1905. Aunque estos resultados fueron ampliamente aceptados, luego fueron cuestionados por el astrónomo griego Eugène Antoniadi, el naturalista inglés Alfred Russel Wallace y otros como simples rasgos imaginados. A medida que se usaban telescopios más grandes, se observaron menos canali largos y rectos. Durante una observación realizada en 1909 por Flammarion con un telescopio de 84 cm, se observaron patrones irregulares, pero no se observó ningún canali. En la década de 1870 Schiaparelli observó un oscurecimiento superficial causado por nubes amarillas. En 1909, Antoniadi descubrió que Marte parecía más amarillo durante las oposiciones cuando el planeta estaba más cerca del Sol. Sugirió que la causa de las nubes eran arena o polvo soplado por el viento. En 1894, el astrónomo estadounidense William Wallace Campbell encontró que el espectro de Marte era idéntico al espectro de la Luna, poniendo en duda la creciente teoría de que la atmósfera de Marte era similar a la de la Tierra. Las detecciones previas de agua en la atmósfera de Marte fueron explicadas por condiciones desfavorables, y Campbell determinó que la firma del agua provenía enteramente de la atmósfera terrestre. Aunque estuvo de acuerdo en que las capas de hielo indicaban que había agua en la atmósfera, no creía que las capas fueran suficientemente grandes para permitir que se detectara vapor de agua.​ En ese entonces, los resultados de Campbell fueron considerados polémicos y fueron criticados por los miembros de la comunidad astronómica. Aun así, el astrónomo americano Walter Sydney Adams confirmó los resultados en 1925. Utilizando un termopar de vacío conectado al Telescopio Hooker de 2'54 m en el Observatorio del Monte Wilson, en 1924 los astrónomos estadounidenses Seth Barnes Nicholson y Edison Pettit fueron capaces de medir la energía térmica que irradiaba la superficie de Marte. Determinaron que la temperatura variaba desde –68°C en el polo hasta 7°C en el ecuador.​ A partir del mismo año, las medidas de energía radiada de Marte fueron hechas por el físico estadounidense William Coblentz y el astrónomo estadounidense Carl Otto Lampland. Los resultados mostraron que la temperatura nocturna en Marte descendía a –85°C, lo que indica una «enorme fluctuación diurna» en las temperaturas.​ La temperatura de las nubes marcianas se midió en –30°C. En 1926, al medir las líneas espectrales de los movimientos orbitales de Marte y la Tierra, el astrónomo estadounidense Walter Sydney Adams fue capaz de medir directamente la cantidad de oxígeno y vapor de agua en la atmósfera de Marte. Determinó que «las condiciones extremas de desierto» eran frecuentes en Marte.​ En 1934, Adams y el astrónomo americano Theodore Dunham, Jr. encontraron que la cantidad de oxígeno en la atmósfera de Marte era menor de un uno por ciento de la cantidad que hay en una misma área en la tierra. En 1927, el estudiante holandés Cyprianus Annius van den Bosch hizo una determinación de la masa de Marte basada en los movimientos de las lunas marcianas, con una precisión del 0'2%. Este resultado fue confirmado por el astrónomo holandés Willem de Sitter y publicado en 1938. La emisión de rayos X de Marte fue observada por primera vez por los astrónomos en 2001 utilizando el Observatorio Chandra de Rayos X, y en 2003 se demostró que tenía dos componentes. El primer componente es causado por rayos X del Sol que se dispersan en la atmósfera superior de Marte; el segundo proviene de interacciones entre iones que dan lugar a un intercambio de cargas. En 1983, el análisis del grupo de meteoritos de shergottita, nakhlita y chassignita (SNC) mostró que podrían haberse originado en Marte.​ Se cree que el meteorito ALH84001, descubierto en la Antártida en 1984, se originó en Marte, pero tiene una composición totalmente diferente a la del grupo SNC. En 1996, se anunció que este meteorito podría contener evidencia de fósiles microscópicos de bacterias marcianas. Sin embargo, este hallazgo sigue causando controversia. El análisis químico de los meteoritos marcianos encontrados en la Tierra sugiere que la temperatura ambiente cercana a la superficie de Marte ha estado muy probablemente por debajo del punto de congelación del agua durante gran parte de los últimos cuatro mil millones de años. Michael Neil, Galactic Sound Station, Dreamscapist, Liquid Mind, Terminus Void, Airwaves, Astelyon, Hollan Holmes, InDi0ne-X, Isostatic. 🎧 El playlist detallado: lostfrontier.org/space.html#1060Escucha este episodio completo y accede a todo el contenido exclusivo de lostfrontier.org. Descubre antes que nadie los nuevos episodios, y participa en la comunidad exclusiva de oyentes en https://go.ivoox.com/sq/26825

Dünya'nın bir ucundan, diğer ucuna bir delik açtığınızı düşünün. Ve bu tünelden yüksek hızda hareket eden bir trenin geçtiğini düşünün. Koca bir gezegenin iki uzak noktası arasında sadece 42 dakikada seyahat edebildiğinizi hayal edin. Trafiğin olmadığı bir Dünya ihtimali, ne güzel değil mi? Hiçbir Şey Tesadüf Değil'in bu bölümünde, Yerçekimi Treni isimli düşünce deneyini inceliyoruz. 17'inci yıldan bu yana insanlığın kurduğu bir hayalin gerçekleşme ihtimalini sorguluyoruz.------- Podbee Sunar -------Bu podcast, On Dijital Bankacılık hakkında reklam içerir.Bankacılık On'la Rahat. Dünya Döndükçe EFT-Havale- Fast Ücreti Yok.ON Mobil'i İndir! Bu podcast, Pegasus hakkında reklam içerir.Yeni seyahat rotanı planlamak için hemen https://www.flypgs.com/'u veya Pegasus Mobil uygulamasını ziyaret et!Bu podcast, Garanti BBVA hakkında reklam içerir.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Che fine ha fatto il quadro che ritrae Robert Hooke?Per sostenerci: https://associazioneatelier.it/Per sostenere il progetto su Berlino:https://associazioneatelier.it/in10cities/Sound design: Matteo D'Alessandro

Hier sitzen Joachim und Nils und haben das 17. Türchen ihres Adventskalenders geöffnet, um auf den Schultern von Giganten zu stehen. Im Zentrum steht ein Satz, den Isaac Newton in einem Brief schrieb: „Wenn ich weiter sehen konnte, so deshalb, weil ich auf den Schultern von Giganten stand.“ Klingt nach Demut, aber war es das? Es geht um die wissenschaftliche Rivalität zwischen Newton und Robert Hooke, um geniale Entdeckungen und darum, wie Wissenschaft Fortschritt aufbaut – mit oder ohne subtile Seitenhiebe.Quellen:Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton" by Richard S. Westfall+++ Alle Infos und Streaming-Link zu unseren Werbepartnern findest du hier: LINK +++++ NEU: Wir sind jetzt auch auf Instagram! Hier gehts direkt zum Profil: @wasbishergeschah.podcast ++Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

For this week's bonus episode, Eleanor presents the final Dying Arts episode of the series, which is a timely one all about the critically endangered traditional crafts of Clock, Watch and Orrery Making!We start by chatting through what Orrery's are, and before long we're elbow-deep in discussions of how ancient civilizations like the Greeks and Mayans set about trying to understand the universe, the movements of planetary bodies, and how those concepts manifested themselves in early calendars and shadow clocks. This takes us through some curious concepts like Flat Earth theories, geocentrism, and significant historical figures like Copernicus, Galileo, and good ol' Tycho Brahe.Then though, we're into clocks and watches, chewing through everything from candle clocks and hourglasses to amazing devices like the Antikythera Mechanism, the Ancient Chinese 'Cosmic Engine,' and the kinds of water clocks used in the Middle Ages to portion the day up for various prayers. Via verge escapements, pendulums, and the race of the Longitude Prize, we soon find ourselves at the advent of electrified 'Railway Time' and mass production.Featuring bits of clock and watch folklore, a quick nod to Doctor Faustus, and appearances by the likes of Robert Hooke and our old pal Sosigenes of Alexandria, it's a slightly mind-bending ride. So, what are you waiting for - there isn't a moment to waste!(As for how long a moment is, well, we'll let you decide...)The Three Ravens is an English Myth and Folklore podcast hosted by award-winning writers Martin Vaux and Eleanor Conlon.Released on Mondays, each weekly episode focuses on one of England's 39 historic counties, exploring the history, folklore and traditions of the area, from ghosts and mermaids to mythical monsters, half-forgotten heroes, bloody legends, and much, much more. Then, and most importantly, the pair take turns to tell a new version of an ancient story from that county - all before discussing what that tale might mean, where it might have come from, and the truths it reveals about England's hidden past...Bonus Episodes are released on Thursdays (Magic and Medicines about folk remedies and arcane spells, Three Ravens Bestiary about cryptids and mythical creatures, Dying Arts about endangered heritage crafts, and Something Wicked about folkloric true crime from across history) plus Local Legends episodes on Saturdays - interviews with acclaimed authors, folklorists, podcasters and historians with unique perspectives on that week's county.With a range of exclusive content on Patreon, too, including audio ghost tours, the Three Ravens Newsletter, and monthly Three Ravens Film Club episodes about folk horror films from across the decades, why not join us around the campfire and listen in?Learn more at www.threeravenspodcast.com, join our Patreon at www.patreon.com/threeravenspodcast, and find links to our social media channels here: https://linktr.ee/threeravenspodcast Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Instead of molecules that absorb light based on their molecular orbitals, this episode talks of nanostructures and their materials that refract light based on interference of light waves. We start with Robert Hooke who described this process in his book Micrographia. We continue through Isaac Newton and Lord Rayleigh. We discuss Eli Yablonovitch's photonic crystals. We mention various kinds of natural structural colorants in the living and non-living worlds, from minerals to insects to bacteria to plants. Then we list several attempts to synthesize structural colorants, and why they might prove useful.Support the Show. Support my podcast at https://www.patreon.com/thehistoryofchemistry Tell me how your life relates to chemistry! E-mail me at steve@historyofchem.com Get my book, O Mg! How Chemistry Came to Be, from World Scientific Publishing, https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/12670#t=aboutBook

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1232, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Flying Maneuvers 1: To do it to a fire, you cover it, to do it to a plane, you lower one wing. Bank it. 2: Noisy term for flying low over a person or area. Buzzing. 3: Also a Coney Island ride, it's a 360-degree maneuver that starts by pointing the nose upward. Loop-the-loop. 4: In this roll named for a container, the plane revolves once on its longitudinal axis. Barrel roll. 5: Pitch is when the plane's nose moves up or down, and this 3-letter word refers to a left or right motion. Yaw. Round 2. Category: For A Song. With For in quotes 1: We know you remember this 1991 duet between Natalie Cole and her dad, because it's.... "Unforgettable". 2: According to Katy Perry, these title gals will "melt your Popsicle". California girls. 3: Zayn Malik and Taylor Swift teamed up on this song from "Fifty Shades Darker". "I Don't Wanna Live Forever". 4: A Creedence classic says, "It ain't me, I ain't no" this title. "Fortunate Son". 5: "I would give the stars above" in exchange in this '60s classic by the Yardbirds. "For Your Love". Round 3. Category: Arabic 1: A shamal is a wind that whips up this blinding phenomenon. a sandstorm. 2: The number 3 is talaata, and this day of the week is El Talaat. Tuesday. 3: The name of this headdress for men may be related to the word "coif". kaffiyeh. 4: Change 1 letter in "wade" to get this, a gully that's dry except during periods of rain. a wadi. 5: In Arabic, follow a hope about the future, like the train arriving shortly, with this, meaning "Allah willing". inshallah. Round 4. Category: British Inventions 1: A perambulator or pram to the Brits, it was invented in 1733 by William Kent for the Duke of Devonshire's kids. a baby carriage. 2: In 1676 Robert Hooke came up with a universal one of these to manipulate the mirrors of his helioscope. a universal joint. 3: The name of this Scot who invented the steam hammer sounds just like the American who invented basketball. (James) Nasmyth. 4: For the military, zoologist John Kerr developed the "dazzle paint" type of this, something animals also use. camouflage. 5: The miner's safety lamp was also called by the name of this British chemist who invented it in 1815. Sir Humphry Davy. Round 5. Category: Classic Lit 1: This story begins, "All children, except one, grow up". Peter Pan. 2: Edmund Dantes is unjustly accused of aiding the exiled Napoleon and imprisoned for life in this novel. The Count of Monte Cristo. 3: "The Jungle Book" contains a story about Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, one of these animals who protects his human family. a mongoose. 4: In a novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett, 7-year-old Cedric Errol inherits a title and is known as "Little Lord" this. Fauntleroy. 5: In "Gulliver's Travels", the sizes in this land are reduced to 1/12. Lilliput. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

The 17th-century English physicist Robert Hooke was curious about the remarkable properties of cork -- its ability to float, its springy quality, its usefulness in sealing bottles. Hooke investigated the structure of cork with a new scientific instrument he was very enthusiastic about: the microscope.

“If I have seen further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants” Sir Isaac Newton famously stated in a letter to polymath scientist, Robert Hooke back in 1675. Today, Dr. Mary Crow, MD, aides Arthritis & Rheumatology launch a series on immunology, for rheumatologists. She is the co-author of the article Standing on Shoulders: Interferon Research, from Viral Interference to Lupus Pathogenesis and Treatment. In this episode, we stand with Dr. Crow to look back at the achievements made by brilliant minds in interferon research and analyze the unbroken line their advancements in rheumatology have led to today's discoveries, with more to com

In aflevering 61 van Radio Horzelnest schuift wetenschapshistorica en -journaliste Geertje Dekkers bij ons aan voor een gesprek over Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Afgelopen april 2023 verscheen Geertje's boek ‘Veel, klein en curieus: de wereld van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek' bij Uitgeverij Het Spectrum. Eerder verscheen van haar hand onder meer ‘Waanwijze lasterbende: De geboorte van de wetenschap in acht ruzies' (2018). Als wetenschapsjournaliste schrijft ze voor verschillende tijdschriften en kranten, waaronder Historisch Nieuwsblad, Quest, en de Volkskrant. Naar aanleiding van haar nieuwe boek gaan we vandaag in gesprek over de beroemde Delfste microscopist. Van Leeuwenhoek werkte als lakenkoopman, landmeter, wijnroeier en kamerbeheerder van de Heren Schepenen in de Prinsenstad. Maar hij speelde zichzelf vooral in de kijker met zijn kleinkijkerij. Evenals geleerden en tijdsgenoten zoals Nehemiah Grew, Robert Hooke, Jan Swammerdam en Marcello Malpighi, wendde ook Van Leeuwenhoek zijn onderzoekende oog naar de microwereld. Zijn kleine zelfgemaakte microscoopjes, met enkelvoudige druppelvormige lens ter grootte van een speldenknop, verleende hem toegang tot een wereld die zich pas net ontsloten was, met vergrotingen tot 270 maal. In deze laatste aflevering van 2023 laat Geertje Dekkers je kennismaken met de nalatenschap van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Veel luisterplezier! TIMESTAMPS 00:00-03:33 – Introductie 03:33-16:30 – Vroege leven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, blauwalg in het Berkelse Meer, lensgebruik in de lakenhandel en uitvinding van de microscoop 16:30-30:37 – Contact Reinier de Graaf, entree bij de Royal Society, Leeuwenhoeks lenzen en preparaten. 30:37-40:37 – Leeuwenhoeks observaties, experimenten en beschrijvingen van de microwereld. 40:37-51:20 – Descartes' deeltjesleer, Leeuwenhoeks grootste blunder, zaadcellen en nog meer experimenten. 51:20-55:56 –Visualizing the Unknown en theoriegeladenheid van de waarneming. 55:56-57:43 – Afsluiting

Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts haben die ersten Forscher Mikroskope gebaut - und kamen aus dem Staunen nicht mehr heraus: Alles, was ihnen vor die Linse kam, war neu und aufregend. «Es war eine gute Zeit, um Wissenschaftler zu sein», sagt Keith Moore, Archivar der Royal Society in London. Er meint die Zeit um 1660, als 12 Wissenschaftler in London sich zusammentaten und die Royal Society gründeten, die englische Wissenschaftsgesellschaft, die lange die wichtigste in ganz Europa bleiben sollte. Alles, was Forscher sich damals genauer anschauten war neu. Sie waren die ersten, die konsequent darauf achteten, ihr Wissen nur aus Experimenten zu ziehen, und sie misstrauten überkommenen Autoritäten. Und: Sie boten einer neuen Technik den Raum, den sie brauchte, um sich voll zu entfalten: Der Mikroskopie. Robert Hooke, erster Kurator der Royal Society, liess sich von Londoner Handwerkern ein Mikroskop bauen und füllte ein ganzes Buch mit detaillierten Zeichnungen von Läusen, Mohnsamen und Nähnadelspitzen. «Micrographia» war das erste populärwissenschaftliche Buch überhaupt und für seine Zeit extrem erfolgreich. Wenige Jahre später las das Buch Antoni von Leeuwenhoek im niederländischen Delft, war fasziniert, baute seine eigenen Mikroskope und wurde zum zweiten Pionier der Mikroskopie: Er war der erste der Bakterien sah, beschrieb wie Spermien schwimmen und untersuchte das Leben in Pfützen vor seiner Haustür. – Ein Ausflug in die Wissenschaftswelt vor fast 400 Jahren, und die Frage, warum das Forschen und Aufklären eigentlich genau damals derart Fahrt aufnahm. «Das erste Mal»: Sommerserie der SRF-Wissenschaftsredaktion, Folge 5/7.

Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter written in 1675 to fellow scientist Robert Hooke, wrote, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Chuck Colson was one of those giants for many of us, and it is our privilege to steward his legacy at the Colson Center.   In fact, Chuck believed that his most important legacy, more than any of the organizations he founded or the many books he authored, would be people. That's why he started what he called the Centurions Program, something that continues today under a different name, the Colson Fellows program. Here's Chuck Colson on the important vision he had for this program:   "I have a burning passion—it's the first item on my prayer list every day—and that's to see a movement of Christians raised up from the churches to defend truth in the marketplace of ideas and to live out the Gospel. Nothing less than this kind of an awakening can possibly save our quickly deteriorating culture. That's why I'm now spending all of my time working at Breakpoint and the Colson Center. One of my major projects is developing Christian leaders who can understand and defend a biblical view of all of life. We call this the Centurions Program.    For the past six years we have brought 100 of the best and brightest into this year-long teaching effort, to study under some of the best minds in the Christian world. It's demanding: We read books together, view movies and critique them, do a lot of teaching online, and have three residencies during the year in Lansdowne, Virginia, near our offices.    Our Centurion graduates are like the Marines or the Navy Seals who are on the front lines of the next wave of leaders. Can this work?     Just two weeks ago I was in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for a rally on behalf of the Manhattan Declaration. It was organized by the Catholic Archbishop of New Mexico, Michael Sheehan, and a former congressman named Bill Redmond, who is a Centurion graduate. You can imagine my thrill when I walked into the convention center to see 1,600 participants. And they were on fire!    They were there to learn biblical worldview, to learn how to defend the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty, to learn how to become activists! There were representatives from across the denominational spectrum: Southern Baptists, Nazarenes, Assemblies of God, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics. The Church had come together. And all of this was organized by one gutsy archbishop and one Centurion graduate. They in fact have built a powerful network across the state of New Mexico. So yes, it can be done.    And our Centurions are doing a whole variety of important tasks across the spectrum. Like Jon Blankmeyer, who founded a safe home for girls rescued from forced prostitution. Josue Delgado, a hospital chaplain who teaches emergency medical technicians on how to build stronger marriages. Kathy Peele, who founded a group to help mothers under distress, and so many more. By the time they are certified, Centurions know how to write, discuss, and teach Christian worldview in all sorts of settings.    They know how to create God-honoring culture through the arts, media, literature, and business. They're able to debate ethical challenges with medical professionals, advocate human rights, and develop tomorrow's leaders by raising children grounded in biblical values. In short, they learn to defend truth in an age in which many believe such a thing does not exist.    Look, folks, the reason the Church today is having so little impact is too many Christians view their faith only in terms of a personal relationship with Jesus. But Christianity does not stop with salvation: That's only the beginning. We've got to learn how to present our worldview in a winsome way. And if we don't do this, it simply dooms our churches to isolation and irrelevance—just when our culture desperately needs the hope of the Gospel more than ever."    After Chuck's death in 2012, the program he started as the Centurions Program was renamed the Colson Fellows program. I think Chuck would be ecstatic to know that this past year, over 1,300 Christians from across the country and around the world studied worldview, theology, and culture as part of the Colson Fellows program. He'd be even more excited to know all the ways the fellows are currently planning to apply what they've learned in the time and place God has called them.   If you desire to make a similar impact in your community for Christ, consider studying with the Colson Fellows program next year. With over 60 regional cohorts around the country, there is likely a cohort in your region. If not, there are online cohorts offered as well. Either way, you'll find a deeper understanding of truth and be better equipped to live out your faith in this cultural moment in whatever calling and vocation God has put before you. For more information, visit www.colsonfellows.org.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.  This Breakpoint was revised from one aired March 16, 2022.  

 This is Superlative: A Podcast about watches, the people behind them, and the worlds that inspire them. This week our host and aBlogtoWatch Founder Ariel Adams is joined by Roger Peeters, the Founder and Master Watchmaker of Hooke and Huygens. To start the show Ariel dives into discussing small independent high end watch brands, and their important role in the watch industry. They talk about the mentality behind the modern watchmaker today, and how important having a true artist's touch is important when creating a watch brand or new design. Ariel asks why Roger did not go with his own name when creating this brand, and who exactly Robert Hooke and Christiaan Huygens are. They dive into the brands overall strategy with their relationship with their customers, and they go over their patented Hooke and Huygens ring-shaped semi-skeleton ring movement with 12 positions and 41 jewel bearings. To stay updated with Roger and Hooke and Huygens:Website - https://www.hookeandhuygens.com/ Instagram @HookeandHuygensWatches - https://www.instagram.com/hookeandhuygenswatches/ To check out the ABTW Shop where you can see our products inspired by our love of Horology:- Shop ABTW - https://store.ablogtowatch.com/To keep updated with everything Superlative and aBlogtoWatch, check us out on:- Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/ablogtowatch/- Twitter - https://twitter.com/ABLOGTOWATCH- Website - https://www.ablogtowatch.com/If you enjoy the show please Subscribe, Rate, and Review!

It's Fiona's week to chat about one of her guide crushes, the polymath Robert Hooke. Is he everything he is cracked up to be? Or is there trouble afoot? We delve into one of the lesser known contemporaries of Christopher Wren, and find out why he is overlooked more often than not. Why does he not get the headlines that Wren does? And why do we need to proceed with caution on his story? Find out in this week's episode. Visit https://www.ladieswholondon.com/post/ep-139-dr-robert-hooke  for more information on this week's episode. Get in touch! Instagram; @ladieswholondonpodcast Email; ladieswholondon@gmail.com Websites; www.ladieswholondon.com Alex's guiding website - www.alexlacey.com Fiona's guiding website - https://britainsbestguides.org/guides/fiona-lukas/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Semafor Telgrafı, elektrik kullanmamasına rağmen dünyanın ilk modern haberleşme metoduydu. En büyük ağ da, Napolyon Fransasında bulunuyor, 4800 km kat ediyordu. Ve iki kardeş bunu hackleyerek zengin olmayı başardı.Bu bölümde sadece tarih değil, internet gibi bir haberleşme protokolünün temelden nasıl tasarlandığını da öğreneceğiz. Tüm kaynaklar ve referanslar aşağıda. Hepinize ve Patreonculara teşekkürler..Bu podcast, Cambly hakkında reklam içerir.Cambly'nin %60 indirimden 6fular koduyla yararlanmak için aşağıdaki linke tıklayın.https://cambly.biz/6fularCambly Kids'in %60 indiriminden 6fularkids koduyla yararlanmak için ise aşağıdaki linke tıklayın.https://cambly.biz/6fularkidsBölümler:(00:40) Duman, ateş ve hidrolik semafor.(02:50) Le télégraphe Chappe.(06:15) Bir protokol tasarlayalım.(09:20) "internet" protokolü.(12:18) Orijinal telgraf.(13:45) Uçtan uca şifreleme.(15:25) Ortadaki adam (man in the middle).(16:25) Haberleşme asitmetrisi.(18:15) İlk siber saldırı.(21:15) Özet ve Patreon teşekkürleri..Kaynaklar:Yazı: First cyberattack | The 1st Man-in-the-Middle AttackVideo: How the first ever telecoms scam workedYazı: What the Count of Monte Cristo Can Teach Us About CybersecurityKitap: Monte Cristo Kontuİsimler: Claude Chappe, Robert Hooke,See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The London Undone ‘City of London Churches' podcast series: A journey around the magnificent and many churches of the City of London. Learn about their histories, architecture, associations, features and their spiritual lives today.39. Hear Rector George Bush explain once and for all that the bells of St Mary-le-Bow were indeed the Bow bells! More than this, this church has the most extraordinary stained glass windows, has a 9ft dragon as a weather vane, and has always been connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury. For foodies, the very first City church cafe/ restaurant still operates in the old Norman crypt. There's a lot more to St Mary-le-Bow than its Christopher Wren (or Robert Hooke) walls. Press ‘play'!

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford. Brother Guy Consolmagno, director of the Vatican Observatory and president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation. Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy. This episode was produced by Rosalind Rei and Maria Devlin McNair. Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Christopher Wren, who died 300 years ago this year, is famed as the architect of St Paul's Cathedral. But he was also Gresham Professor of Astronomy, and one of the founders of a society “for the promotion of Physico-Mathematicall Experimental Learning” which became the Royal Society.This lecture explores some of Wren's mathematical work on curves including spirals and ellipses and the mathematics behind his most impressive architectural achievement – the dome of St Paul's.A lecture by Sarah Hart recorded on 7 March 2023 at David Game College, London.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/maths-wrenGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

17th-century physicist Robert Hooke was fascinated with corks. Today's A Moment of Science takes a closer look at his findings.

London, 1679 — A year has passed since the sensational attempt to murder King Charles II, but London is still a viper's nest of rumored Catholic conspiracies, and of plots against them in turn. When Harry Hunt — estranged from his mentor Robert Hooke — is summoned to the remote and windswept marshes of Norfolk, he is at first relieved to get away from the place.But in Norfolk, he finds that some Royal workers shoring up a riverbank have made a grim discovery — the skeleton of a dwarf. Harry is able to confirm that the skeleton is that of Captain Jeffrey Hudson, a prominent member of the court once famously given to the Queen in a pie. Except no one knew Hudson was dead, because another man had been impersonating him.The hunt for the impersonator, clearly working as a spy, will take Harry to Paris, another city bedeviled by conspiracies and intrigues, and back, with encounters along the way with a flying man and a cross-dressing swordswoman — and to the uncovering of a plot to kill the Queen and all the Catholic members of her court. But where? When?The Poison Machine is a nail-biting and brilliantly imagined historical thriller that will delight readers of its critically acclaimed predecessor, The Bloodless BoySupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/houseofmysteryradio. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/houseofmysteryradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

London, 1679. Combining the color and adventure of Alexandre Dumas and the thrills of Frederick Forsyth, early scientists Harry Hunt and Robert Hooke of the Royal Society stumble onto a plot to kill the Queen of England. The Poison Machine (Melville House, 2022) is a nail-biting and brilliantly imagined historical thriller that will delight readers of its critically acclaimed predecessor, The Bloodless Boy. Tune in as we speak with Robert J. Lloyd about his recent novel set in Restoration England, The Poison Machine.  Robert J. Lloyd, after a twenty-year career as a secondary school teacher, has returned to painting and writing, and is now working on the third book in the Hunt and Hooke series. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

London, 1679. Combining the color and adventure of Alexandre Dumas and the thrills of Frederick Forsyth, early scientists Harry Hunt and Robert Hooke of the Royal Society stumble onto a plot to kill the Queen of England. The Poison Machine (Melville House, 2022) is a nail-biting and brilliantly imagined historical thriller that will delight readers of its critically acclaimed predecessor, The Bloodless Boy. Tune in as we speak with Robert J. Lloyd about his recent novel set in Restoration England, The Poison Machine.  Robert J. Lloyd, after a twenty-year career as a secondary school teacher, has returned to painting and writing, and is now working on the third book in the Hunt and Hooke series. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

London, 1679. Combining the color and adventure of Alexandre Dumas and the thrills of Frederick Forsyth, early scientists Harry Hunt and Robert Hooke of the Royal Society stumble onto a plot to kill the Queen of England. The Poison Machine (Melville House, 2022) is a nail-biting and brilliantly imagined historical thriller that will delight readers of its critically acclaimed predecessor, The Bloodless Boy. Tune in as we speak with Robert J. Lloyd about his recent novel set in Restoration England, The Poison Machine.  Robert J. Lloyd, after a twenty-year career as a secondary school teacher, has returned to painting and writing, and is now working on the third book in the Hunt and Hooke series. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/historical-fiction

Have faith and science always been enemies? The story of Robert Hooke, a revolutionary working in the Scientific Revolution, exemplifies the ways in which Christianity has actually provoked scientific inquiry.  Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.Patricia Fara, director of studies and affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge's Department of the History and Philosophy of Science.Jim Bennett, Keeper Emeritus at the Science Museum, London and professor emeritus of the history of science, University of Oxford.Stephen Barr, professor emeritus at the University of Delaware's department of physics and astronomy.Illuminations is supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

From London Temporada 28: El viaje a La Luz del Misterio, en London Radio World, de esta semana, nos lleva en primer lugar a conocer qué era el Colegio Invisible. A mediados de la década de 1640, un grupo de filósofos naturales comenzaron a reunirse en Inglaterra para promover el conocimiento del mundo natural a través de la observación y la experimentación. El grupo incluía filósofos naturales (hoy llamados científicos) como Robert Boyle -considerado como el primer químico moderno- y Robert Hooke -el primero en visualizar un microorganismo-, y al arquitecto Christopher Wren, también anatomista, astrónomo, geómetra y matemático-físico. Luego hacemos un pequeño homenaje para recordar a Colin Bloy. Fue un sanador británico, pionero en la investigación de los círculos de la Campiña Inglesa. Nos dejó en el año 2004 y fue autor de diversos libros sobre el tema, ha destacado por su intenso trabajo en el campo de la sanación espiritual, la Qabbalah, las líneas telúricas de Gaia, los Templarios y los mundos sutiles son algunos de los conceptos frecuente e íntimamente relacionados por este investigador y sanador, con las esferas de actuación de la sanación espiritual, a través de los arquetipos. En la siguiente entrevista que realizabamos en La Luz del Misterio en el año 1994, desvela algunas de las bases sutiles que impregnan esta práctica espiritual. La sanación espiritual se nutre de fundamentos sutiles que pueden curar a las personas, las ciudades, a los países e incluso hasta el planeta en general. Además de la hablar de los misteriosos círculos de la Campiña Inglesa. Y terminaremos conociendo algunos enigmas y recomendaciones para viajar a las Islas Galápagos de la mano del aventurero y experto, Ángel Crespo. Síguenos a través de: edenex.es ZTR Radio.online London Radio World En Ivoox Itunes Spotify YouTube Si deseas apoyarnos: https://www.ivoox.com/ajx-apoyar_i1_support_29070_1.html SI DESEAS SALUDARNOS DESDE CUALQUIER PUNTO DEL PLANTA PUEDES HACERLO A TRAVÉS DE NUESTRO WHATSAPP 00 44 7378 880037 Más información: laluzdelmisterioradio.blogspot.com laluzdelmisterio@gmail.com #colinbloy #sanacionespiritual #circuloscampiñainglesa #colegioinvisible #charlesdarwin #islasgalápagos #angelcrespo

In this episode of Perspectives, we speak with Ofer Gal, author of The Origins of Modern Science: From Antiquity to the Scientific Revolution. What is the role of history in telling stories about science? How and why do we know about how the planets orbit? Why are there cathedrals in South America, and what does that have to do with science? Listen in as Professor of History and Philosophy of Science Ofer Gal offers a peek into his exploration of science as a global cultural phenomenon. Gal's synthetic approach to writing history of science begins with Plato and the Ancient Greeks and ends with Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton. In between these great men of science, Gal analyzes a wide range of knowledge producers (including magicians), and draws connections between the role of political power, institutions such as learned academies and universities, and the production of knowledge about the natural world. Gal's metaphor of the cathedral, the architectural form that signifies the power of a particular religion and a particular deity, prompts readers and listeners to situate scientific knowledge within the conditions of its production. The episode ends with an important reminder to consider the questions one asks, not just the answer one receives. Closed-captioning available on YouTube, https://youtu.be/PxKucDmj4VY. To cite this podcast, please use footnote: Ofer Gal, interview, Perspectives, Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, July 4, 2022, https://www.chstm.org/video/138

Subscribe to Quotomania on Simplecast or search for Quotomania on your favorite podcast app!Sir Isaac Newton, (born Jan. 4, 1643, Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, Eng.—died March 31, 1727, London), was an English physicist and mathematician. The son of a yeoman, he was raised by his grandmother. He was educated at Cambridge University (1661–65), where he discovered the work of René Descartes. His experiments passing sunlight through a prism led to the discovery of the heterogeneous, corpuscular nature of white light and laid the foundation of physical optics. He built the first reflecting telescope in 1668 and became a professor of mathematics at Cambridge in 1669. He worked out the fundamentals of calculus, though this work went unpublished for more than 30 years. His most famous publication, Principia Mathematica (1687), grew out of correspondence with Edmond Halley. Describing his works on the laws of motion (see Newton's laws of motion), orbital dynamics, tidal theory, and the theory of universal gravitation, it is regarded as the seminal work of modern science. He was elected president of the Royal Society of London in 1703 and became the first scientist ever to be knighted in 1705. During his career he engaged in heated arguments with several of his colleagues, including Robert Hooke (over authorship of the inverse square relation of gravitation) and G.W. Leibniz (over the authorship of calculus). The battle with Leibniz dominated the last 25 years of his life; it is now well established that Newton developed calculus first, but that Leibniz was the first to publish on the subject. Newton is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time.From https://www.britannica.com/summary/Isaac-Newton. For more information about Isaac Newton:“Isaac Newton”: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/isaac-newton-who-he-was-why-apples-are-falling“The Truth About Isaac Newton's Productive Plague”: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-truth-about-isaac-newtons-productive-plague“Isaac Newton”: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton/

Para contratarme lo tienes aquí: https://cursosdejardineria.com/#consulta Mi boletín “Los correos del Jardinerista” aquí: https://claudiodoratto.com/boletin El canal de Telegram: https://t.me/jardineros Hoy viajamos en el tiempo y nos vamos a la Inglaterra del siglo XVII. Transcurre el año 1665 cuando Robert publica los resultados de sus observaciones en los tejidos del corcho. Pero vamos tiempo atrás, en 1662 junto con otros científicos crearon la primera sociedad científica de la historia, la Royal Society de Londres. Como verás era un tipo importante. Desde chico le gustaron muchas cosas bien distintas como la biología y la arquitectura, como la medicina y la ingeniería, aunque hay más. También tenía muchas ideas que compartía o discutía con personas como Newton. ¿Te imaginas lo que sería eso?

Le sens conçu pour percevoir les sons, c'est bien sûr celui de l'ouïe. C'est du moins ce qui vient tout de suite à l'esprit. Et pourtant, le son peut aussi se voir. C'est tout l'intérêt de ce qu'om appelle les figures de Chladni.La découverte progressive du phénomèneDès 1638, Galilée s'était aperçu que des motifs apparaissaient sur une plaque qu'on faisait vibrer. Une quarantaine d'années plus tard, le phénomène est étudié de plus près par le scientifique anglais Robert Hooke.Mais c'est le physicien allemand Ernst Chladni qui le décrit avec le plus de précision, dans un livre paru en 1787. D'où le nom de "figures de Chladni" donné aux motifs apparaissant sur la plaque vibrante.Napoléon, devant lequel Chladni fit une démonstration, se montra intéressé par l'expérience. Il décida alors d'organiser un concours destiné à trouver une explication mathématique au phénomène.C'est la mathématicienne française Sophie Germain qui, en 1816, trouva finalement la solution du problème.Comment faire apparaître les figures ?Pour ses expériences, Chladni utilisait des plaque en métal, mais on peut se servir d'autres matériaux. Une fois la plaque solidement fixée sur un support, on dépose du sable à sa surface.La deuxième étape consiste à faire vibrer la plaque. Pour ce faire, Chladni utilisait l'archet d'un violon, qu'il frottait contre la plaque. La vibration provoquée par l'archet entraîne le déplacement du sable.Ce mouvement a ses lois. En effet, le sable se déplace depuis les zones de forte vibration vers celles où cette vibration est plus faible, ou même nulle. C'est en se déplaçant ainsi que le sable forme des figures particulières.Chladni avait également remarqué que la configuration de ces motifs dépendait de l'intensité de la vibration. Par ailleurs, en posant un doigt sur la plaque, à certains endroits, il est possible de modifier la forme qu'affectent les motifs.La forme de ces figures est également conditionnée par la nature de la plaque et par la manière dont on la fait vibrer. Malgré une grande diversité théorique, le nombre de motifs apparaissant sur une plaque est assez limité. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Le sens conçu pour percevoir les sons, c'est bien sûr celui de l'ouïe. C'est du moins ce qui vient tout de suite à l'esprit. Et pourtant, le son peut aussi se voir. C'est tout l'intérêt de ce qu'om appelle les figures de Chladni. La découverte progressive du phénomène Dès 1638, Galilée s'était aperçu que des motifs apparaissaient sur une plaque qu'on faisait vibrer. Une quarantaine d'années plus tard, le phénomène est étudié de plus près par le scientifique anglais Robert Hooke. Mais c'est le physicien allemand Ernst Chladni qui le décrit avec le plus de précision, dans un livre paru en 1787. D'où le nom de "figures de Chladni" donné aux motifs apparaissant sur la plaque vibrante. Napoléon, devant lequel Chladni fit une démonstration, se montra intéressé par l'expérience. Il décida alors d'organiser un concours destiné à trouver une explication mathématique au phénomène. C'est la mathématicienne française Sophie Germain qui, en 1816, trouva finalement la solution du problème. Comment faire apparaître les figures ? Pour ses expériences, Chladni utilisait des plaque en métal, mais on peut se servir d'autres matériaux. Une fois la plaque solidement fixée sur un support, on dépose du sable à sa surface. La deuxième étape consiste à faire vibrer la plaque. Pour ce faire, Chladni utilisait l'archet d'un violon, qu'il frottait contre la plaque. La vibration provoquée par l'archet entraîne le déplacement du sable. Ce mouvement a ses lois. En effet, le sable se déplace depuis les zones de forte vibration vers celles où cette vibration est plus faible, ou même nulle. C'est en se déplaçant ainsi que le sable forme des figures particulières. Chladni avait également remarqué que la configuration de ces motifs dépendait de l'intensité de la vibration. Par ailleurs, en posant un doigt sur la plaque, à certains endroits, il est possible de modifier la forme qu'affectent les motifs. La forme de ces figures est également conditionnée par la nature de la plaque et par la manière dont on la fait vibrer. Malgré une grande diversité théorique, le nombre de motifs apparaissant sur une plaque est assez limité. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ROBERT J LLOYD chats to Paul Burke about his philosophical historical crime novel BLOODLESS BOY, scientist/detective Robert Hooke and getting published with a helping hand from Christopher Fowler.BLOODLESS BOY: The City of London, 1678. New Year's Day. The body of a young boy, drained of his blood and with a sequence of numbers inscribed on his skin, is discovered on the snowy bank of the Fleet River. With London gripped by hysteria, where rumors of Catholic plots and sinister foreign assassins abound, Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, the powerful Justice of Peace for Westminster, is certain of Catholic guilt in the crime. He enlists Robert Hooke, the Curator of Experiments of the Royal Society, and his assistant, Harry Hunt, to help his enquiry. Sir Edmund confides to Hooke that the bloodless boy is not the first to have been discovered. He also presents Hooke with a cipher that was left on the body. That same morning Henry Oldenburg, the Secretary of the Royal Society, blows his brains out. A disgraced Earl is released from the Tower of London, bent on revenge against the King, Charles II. Wary of the political hornet's nest they are walking into - and using evidence rather than paranoia in their pursuit of truth - Hooke and Hunt must discover why the boy was murdered, and why his blood was taken. Moreover, what does the cipher mean?Robert Lloyd is the son of parents who worked in the British Foreign Office, grew up in South London, Innsbruck, and Kinshasa. He studied for a Fine Art degree, starting as a landscape painter, but it was while studying for his MA degree in The History of Ideas that he first read Robert Hooke's diary, detailing the life and experiments of this extraordinary man. After a 20-year career as a secondary school teacher, he has now returned to painting and writing. The Bloodless Boy is his debut novel. He is at work on a sequel.Recommended:Lisa Jardine - Ingenious Pursuits (biography/history)Leonora Nattrass - The Black Drop (novel)Produced by Junkyard DogMusic courtesy of Southgate & LeighCrime TimePaul Burke writes for Crime Time, Crime Fiction Lover, NB Magazine and the European Literature Network and edits/presents Crime Time FM.

The scientists affiliated with the early Royal Society of London have long been regarded as forerunners of modern empiricism, rejecting the symbolic and moral goals of Renaissance natural history in favor of plainly representing the world as it really was. In Aesthetic Science, Alexander Wragge-Morley challenges this interpretation by arguing that key figures such as John Ray, Robert Boyle, Nehemiah Grew, Robert Hooke, and Thomas Willis saw the study of nature as an aesthetic project. To show how early modern naturalists conceived of the interplay between sensory experience and the production of knowledge, Aesthetic Science: Representing Nature in the Royal Society of London, 1650-1720 (U Chicago Press, 2020) explores natural-historical and anatomical works of the Royal Society through the lens of the aesthetic. By underscoring the importance of subjective experience to the communication of knowledge about nature, Wragge-Morley offers a groundbreaking reconsideration of scientific representation in the early modern period and brings to light the hitherto overlooked role of aesthetic experience in the history of the empirical sciences. Alexander Wragge-Morley is a lecturer in the history of science and medicine at the University of Lancaster. His research seeks to understand how people in the past obtained knowledge through sensory experience. In doing so, he brings together histories of science, medicine, the body, the neurosciences, art, literature, and religion. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The scientists affiliated with the early Royal Society of London have long been regarded as forerunners of modern empiricism, rejecting the symbolic and moral goals of Renaissance natural history in favor of plainly representing the world as it really was. In Aesthetic Science, Alexander Wragge-Morley challenges this interpretation by arguing that key figures such as John Ray, Robert Boyle, Nehemiah Grew, Robert Hooke, and Thomas Willis saw the study of nature as an aesthetic project. To show how early modern naturalists conceived of the interplay between sensory experience and the production of knowledge, Aesthetic Science: Representing Nature in the Royal Society of London, 1650-1720 (U Chicago Press, 2020) explores natural-historical and anatomical works of the Royal Society through the lens of the aesthetic. By underscoring the importance of subjective experience to the communication of knowledge about nature, Wragge-Morley offers a groundbreaking reconsideration of scientific representation in the early modern period and brings to light the hitherto overlooked role of aesthetic experience in the history of the empirical sciences. Alexander Wragge-Morley is a lecturer in the history of science and medicine at the University of Lancaster. His research seeks to understand how people in the past obtained knowledge through sensory experience. In doing so, he brings together histories of science, medicine, the body, the neurosciences, art, literature, and religion. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Steve tries to measure distant stars with his thumb, Matt talks black holes & plot holes and Helen plays some of her favourite space sounds. Plus a song from Helen that may provide useful information for your future interstellar travel needs:- Steve's bit (01:00)- Helen's bit (12:30)- Matt's bit (24:40)- Helen's Cryonic Love Song (38:50)Join us live for "An Evening Of Unnecessary Detail" on Thursday 7th and Friday 8th April 2022 at London's Bloomsbury Theatre. Get your tickets here.For tickets to live shows, nerd merch, our mailing list and more, visit: http://festivalofthespokennerd.com.Want to get in touch? We're on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or email podcast@festivalofthespokennerd.com. Come for the Unnecessary Detail. Stay for the A Podcast Of. SHOW NOTES: Unfortunately our show notes are too big for Acast's margins to contain... head to the Interstellar episode page to see everything.Corrections and clarifications:- 12:09 - Helen uses the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" which - as Lynda Goldenberg rightly points out - not actually a complement, but rather a heinous insult used by Isaac Newton to describe Robert Hooke. We'll pull this apart properly in a future episode. - 20:49 - Anaesthetists @brisgasdoc and @mjtb1987 have confirmed that they use the blood oxygen level tone all day, every day with their patients. This paper is an interesting investigation into attention and sonification in the operating room, and does mentions how surgical colleagues prefer to keep the oximeter volume down low. Thanks for listening! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Learn about the life of Robert Hooke, rival of Sir Isaac Newton, and much more than just the discoverer of cells.

Show notes: In the show, The Bio Busters professors, Dr. A and Dr. C, discuss the concept of genetic testing as it relates to ancestry. The docs discuss the foundational concepts of how DNA testing works and what exactly these tests are purported to measure. Additionally, they compare the pros and cons of three major types of ancestry tests, as well as what you should expect/not expect when using each of these tests. Keep the discussion and comments going on the iTunes review section, or feel free to e-mail the podcast with future show ideas and thoughts on the current show.   Music by Bahaa Naamani Email us at thebiobusters@gmail.com References: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/review-genetic-tests-23andme-veritas-genos-health-comparison https://www.livescience.com/62690-how-dna-ancestry-23andme-tests-work.html Link to Robert Hooke's Micrographia http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15491/15491-h/15491-h.htm#obsLIII