Brian Clegg

There just is no good scientific evidence. When you treat it scientifically, which means you have to separate off all the different influences, put people in a controlled situation so that you can actually separate off what is causing something, there is no good evidence that consumption of sugar actually makes them hyper.

There just is no good scientific evidence. When you treat it scientifically, which means you have to separate off all the different influences, put people in a controlled situation so that you can actually separate off what is causing something, there is no good evidence that consumption of sugar actually makes them hyper.

There just is no good scientific evidence. When you treat it scientifically, which means you have to separate off all the different influences, put people in a controlled situation so that you can actually separate off what is causing something, there is no good evidence that consumption of sugar actually makes them hyper.

That's quite a nice little example of the it's a bit more complicated than that. The Big Bang theory is a theory of how the universe works. grew from practically nothing all the way up to what we have today. And we think that has taken about 13.8 billion years for it to go from a very tiny, pretty practically nothing up to what we have now.

That's quite a nice little example of the it's a bit more complicated than that. The Big Bang theory is a theory of how the universe works. grew from practically nothing all the way up to what we have today. And we think that has taken about 13.8 billion years for it to go from a very tiny, pretty practically nothing up to what we have now.

That's quite a nice little example of the it's a bit more complicated than that. The Big Bang theory is a theory of how the universe works. grew from practically nothing all the way up to what we have today. And we think that has taken about 13.8 billion years for it to go from a very tiny, pretty practically nothing up to what we have now.

And the Big Bang Theory is very successful at explaining that. But we tend to kind of associate it with literally the beginning of everything. And that's the one thing the Big Bang theory doesn't do for us. It doesn't actually explain why or how the universe came into being initially. That very first start, it has to already have, if you like, the laws of physics have to be there already.

And the Big Bang Theory is very successful at explaining that. But we tend to kind of associate it with literally the beginning of everything. And that's the one thing the Big Bang theory doesn't do for us. It doesn't actually explain why or how the universe came into being initially. That very first start, it has to already have, if you like, the laws of physics have to be there already.

And the Big Bang Theory is very successful at explaining that. But we tend to kind of associate it with literally the beginning of everything. And that's the one thing the Big Bang theory doesn't do for us. It doesn't actually explain why or how the universe came into being initially. That very first start, it has to already have, if you like, the laws of physics have to be there already.

It doesn't explain where they come from. And the actual initial start of the whole thing requires, if you like it, to be there already for it to then start expanding. So it's not quite made it. And the other thing about it is we have a problem just seeing back that far. Now, the universe is really quite generous to us because light takes a long time to get to us from very distant places.

It doesn't explain where they come from. And the actual initial start of the whole thing requires, if you like it, to be there already for it to then start expanding. So it's not quite made it. And the other thing about it is we have a problem just seeing back that far. Now, the universe is really quite generous to us because light takes a long time to get to us from very distant places.

It doesn't explain where they come from. And the actual initial start of the whole thing requires, if you like it, to be there already for it to then start expanding. So it's not quite made it. And the other thing about it is we have a problem just seeing back that far. Now, the universe is really quite generous to us because light takes a long time to get to us from very distant places.

So the further out you look in the universe, the further back you see in time. And we can see back until maybe 300, 400,000 years after the beginning. But beyond that, we can't see because the universe wasn't transparent before then. Light couldn't get through it. So what that does mean is that those first years, we struggled a little bit to be sure exactly what happened then.

So the further out you look in the universe, the further back you see in time. And we can see back until maybe 300, 400,000 years after the beginning. But beyond that, we can't see because the universe wasn't transparent before then. Light couldn't get through it. So what that does mean is that those first years, we struggled a little bit to be sure exactly what happened then.

So the further out you look in the universe, the further back you see in time. And we can see back until maybe 300, 400,000 years after the beginning. But beyond that, we can't see because the universe wasn't transparent before then. Light couldn't get through it. So what that does mean is that those first years, we struggled a little bit to be sure exactly what happened then.

And certainly the Big Bang doesn't give us any insights of the initial beginning. So it's just a slight tweak, if you like. It's a great theory. It explains a lot. It gives us a timescale for the universe. But what it doesn't do is say how the universe came into being.

And certainly the Big Bang doesn't give us any insights of the initial beginning. So it's just a slight tweak, if you like. It's a great theory. It explains a lot. It gives us a timescale for the universe. But what it doesn't do is say how the universe came into being.

And certainly the Big Bang doesn't give us any insights of the initial beginning. So it's just a slight tweak, if you like. It's a great theory. It explains a lot. It gives us a timescale for the universe. But what it doesn't do is say how the universe came into being.

Blood is red because of haemoglobin. So there's substance in the stuff that carries the oxygen around the body. And that haemoglobin does contain iron. And so it's quite easy to get a little bit confused and think, OK, well, iron usually makes things reddish. So rust is iron oxide. It's an iron compound. Mars looks red because there's a lot of iron in the surface.

Blood is red because of haemoglobin. So there's substance in the stuff that carries the oxygen around the body. And that haemoglobin does contain iron. And so it's quite easy to get a little bit confused and think, OK, well, iron usually makes things reddish. So rust is iron oxide. It's an iron compound. Mars looks red because there's a lot of iron in the surface.