# Is the Monty Python "Galaxy Song" scientifically accurate?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [January 21, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380 "2008-01-21T15:49:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/21 "2008-01-22T12:50:28Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Nuclear power isn’t derived from solar energy. All other forms of energy are solar, if often very indirectly…
[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget geothermal power.
---
### Author:  [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/22 "2008-01-22T14:52:21Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I’m surprised to be the first person to point this out, but the statement “the sun that is the source of all our power” is flatly wrong, although it was once true. Nuclear power isn’t derived from solar energy. All other forms of energy are solar, if often very indirectly (petroleum comes from the remains of living creatures, which needed the energy of the Sun to exist; hydroelectric power is only possible because of weather that is created by solar energy, etc. etc.) but radioactive elements like uranium were created before the formation of our solar system, and owe nothing to the Sun for their existence.
[/QUOTE]
But they were created in _a_ sun, if not _the_ sun. If we get fusion working then the statement would be patently untrue.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/23 "2008-01-22T16:36:03Z")
[QUOTE=flight]
But they were created in _a_ sun, if not _the_ sun. If we get fusion working then the statement would be patently untrue.
[/QUOTE]
It’s already untrue because of geothermal power that I mentioned.
I’m waiting for the pedants to claim that geothermal is (entirely) stellar in origin.
Oh, and we have got fusion working, just not in a way that it could usefully be used to generate electricity e.g. in hydrogen bombs.
---
### Author:  [@Ponderoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponderoid)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/24 "2008-01-22T19:36:22Z")
[QUOTE=Mijin]
I’m waiting for the pedants to claim that geothermal is (entirely) stellar in origin.
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty clear from context that Idle was referring to our sun as being the source of all our power, not any other, so, he was off on that one too.
\*\*\* Ponder
---
### Author:  [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/25 "2008-01-22T19:57:47Z")
While we’re being pedantic…
The antecedent for “our” is unspecified. If Mrs. Brown and guests do not utilize nuclear or geothermal energy sources, then all “their” power comes from the sun.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/26 "2008-01-22T22:04:46Z")
It’s meaningless to compare the speed of expansion of the Universe to the speed of light. One could just as easily say “The distance from here to Toledo is less than the speed of light”. The problem, with the Universe, is that the rate at which two points in the Universe recede from each other depends on the distance between them. It’s the ratio of speed to distance, also called the Hubble “constant”, which describes the rate of expansion of the Universe, and that has units of speed per distance, or frequency. The current best value is around 71 km/s/Mpc, or 2.3 attoHertz.
---
### Author:  [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/27 "2008-01-22T22:20:44Z")
[QUOTE=Dervorin]
[Re the Philospher Song]
Well, John Stuart Mill \*did \*talk about free will…
Beyond that I think it’s going to be hard to verify the true historical accuracy this particular composition.
[/QUOTE]
But it could be dis-verified. Is there any evidence that any of the people mentioned in the song were non-drinkers? (C’mon history of philosophy geeks, here’s your time to shine!)
---
### Author:  [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/28 "2008-01-22T22:22:37Z")
Was whiskey available to Plato?
---
### Author:  [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/29 "2008-01-22T22:29:34Z")
[QUOTE=garygnu]
Was whiskey available to Plato?
[/QUOTE]
I guess _retsina_ didn’t quite scan into the line.
I guess we can discount the veracity of the _Philosophers Song_.
How about **The Lumberjack Song**?
Si
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/30 "2008-01-22T23:16:59Z")
The knights (barbarian warriors) of Camelot, assuming they existed in the first place, may have eaten a lot of ham and jam, but they didn’t eat any spam, and they certainly didn’t impersonate Clark Gable
---
### Author:  [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/31 "2012-12-29T20:47:10Z")
Thought I’d just bump this old post rather than starting a new one. From Eric Idle himself via his blog a couple of months ago:
\*I was working on a new version of The Galaxy Song for Professor Brian Cox’s Wonders of Life, and I remembered that some people (including Brian himself) have questioned some of the facts referred to in the original Galaxy Song. When I began to write that song in Provence in 1981 the astronomical distances and speeds mentioned in the lyrics were all considered scientifically accurate: now, of course, we have had thirty years of expanding scientific research and observation and so I have had to alter the words to correspond to our new estimate of the extreme distances in the Galaxy and the ever expanding Universe. \*
He breaks down to song verse by verse and finishes with \*\*The Scientifically Approved and Totally Verified, All New, Guaranteed Reasonably Accurate lyrics to Monty Python’s Galaxy Song. \*\*
Bravo, Eric!
[www.ericidle.com/blog/?p=233](http://www.ericidle.com/blog/?p=233)
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/32 "2012-12-29T21:43:32Z")
Hmm, he’s kept the lyric about expanding at **c**.
And the explanation for it is somewhat confused:
> [@](#):
>
> …matter cannot generally move at the speed of light so the speed of the expansion is somewhat less. On the other hand, there was a time in the early universe where it seems it did expand at a speed greater than the speed of light.
But I guess the line in the song can mean the visible universe, so there shouldn’t be a need for version 3.0 🙂
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/33 "2012-12-29T22:06:49Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> I’m waiting for the pedants to claim that geothermal is (entirely) stellar in origin.
It is indeed entirely stellar in origin in exactly the same sense that, as **flight** pointed out, nuclear fission power is stellar in origin. Geothermal heat is produced by teh radioactive decay of elements in the body of the Earth, and those radioactive elements were indeed formed in stars. If it were not for this radioactive decay, the interior of the Earth would have cooled down long ago.
> [@si\_blakely](#):
>
> I guess _retsina_ didn’t quite scan into the line.
>
> I guess we can discount the veracity of the _Philosophers Song_.
>
> How about **The Lumberjack Song**?
>
> Si
No, Michael Palin may be alright, but he is not a lumberjack.
I have no knowledge as to whether he has ever put on women’s clothing, and hung around in bars.
---
### Author:  [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/34 "2012-12-29T22:48:30Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> But I guess the line in the song can mean the visible universe, so there shouldn’t be a need for version 3.0 🙂
I was happy thirty years ago when I saw Meaning of Life that he made an effort to be scientifically accurate. His new Galaxy DNA Song (not to be confused with the updated lyrics to the original) is worth checking out. Now the biology pedants will have something to do. 😃
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo6OCxwUPPg)
\ ***Galaxy DNA Song**
Just remember you’re a tiny little person on a planet
In a universe expanding and immense
That life began evolving and dissolving and resolving
In the deep primordial oceans by the hydrothermal vents
Our earth which had its birth almost five billion years ago
From out of a collapsing cloud of gas
Grew life which was quite new
And eventually led to you
In only three point five billion years or less.
Recorded Version
(c) Idle/Du Prez, Python (Monty) Ltd.\*
---
### Author:  [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/35 "2012-12-30T00:12:36Z")
Since the thread has been bumped…
> [@Quercus](#):
>
> But it could be dis-verified. Is there any evidence that any of the people mentioned in the song were non-drinkers? (C’mon history of philosophy geeks, here’s your time to shine!)
Nietzsche wrote in _Ecce Homo_ that he had given up alcohol and encouraged all with “spiritual natures” to do the same. However, he also mentioned that he had been a big drinker in his student days, so it’s not so much that he _couldn’t_ have taught ya 'bout the raising of the wrist as that he probably _wouldn’t_ have.
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/36 "2012-12-30T01:56:07Z")
I do not know whether Immanuel Kant was teetotal, but, given his very regular and conservative habits (it is said that the citizens of Konigsberg could set their watches by the time he passed by their house on his daily walks) I would be very surprised if he drank to excess.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/37 "2012-12-30T04:56:09Z")
Socrates himself was most definitely _not_ “permanently pissed,” or he’d never have said or written anything we’d still remember!
---
### Author:  [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/38 "2012-12-30T05:46:48Z")
> [@Rhubarb](#):
>
> But wouldn’t the speed of rotation be about 900 mph at the latitude of England? If not, well hey, it’s just a song! Poetic license, you know.
Surprised no one commented on this. Rotational speed of any particular spot on the Earth is the cosine of its latitude times the equatorial speed. The latitude of London is around 51.5 degrees, so the rotational speed there is 646 mph.
OK, he covers that in the blog entry:
> [@](#):
>
> **And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,**
> The speed of the earth’s revolution is once per day (duh) but at the equator the circumference of the earth is 25,000 miles so that makes the speed just over 1,000 miles per hour. However, by the time you get as far north as the UK (Eric Idle’s country) the speed is actually less than 700 miles per hour. The 900 figure might be good enough for our purposes.
>
> And it was written in Provence, further South than the UK.
In Provence, the speed will be around 750 mph.
Since I have my pedantic mode on, I’ll note that technically, lumberjacks are people who work in lumberyards, not people who chop down trees. Those are called loggers. Common usage (by people not in that business) is otherwise, of course.
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2012, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/39 "2012-12-30T06:23:54Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#):
>
> Socrates himself was most definitely _not_ “permanently pissed,” or he’d never have said or written anything we’d still remember!
He never did write anything we remember. As far as we know, he never wrote anything at all. However, many of the most famous sayings attributed to him are to be found in The Symposium, an account of a drinking party in which he was participating.
---
### Author:  [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380/40 "2012-12-30T14:13:15Z")
> [@dtilque](#):
>
> Since I have my pedantic mode on, I’ll note that technically, lumberjacks are people who work in lumberyards, not people who chop down trees. Those are called loggers. Common usage (by people not in that business) is otherwise, of course.
to be even more pedantic. lumberjack is the device/mechanism used to stack lumber in a lumber yard to which then referred to the people that used it.
stuff is funny no matter what.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-monty-python-galaxy-song-scientifically-accurate/434380.md?page=3)