Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 15-06-2019, 10:40 AM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 4,493
Q&A on ABC Monday 17th June

Essential viewing, a panel full of scientists including Brian Cox, with no idiots to distract from useful conversation.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/
  #2  
Old 15-06-2019, 11:09 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
But no one is listening, other than the Freaks and Geeks. The audience will be interesting.
  #3  
Old 15-06-2019, 11:52 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
I would like to ask a question but I bet it would not be addressed....☺

Is the big bang theory credible given it relies upon the unsupported theory (is it even a theory) of inflation that requires the universe to come into existence and grow to certainly the size of the observable universe and given the observed flatness to a much much greater size than even that... in an instant..all we can see in an instant growing from the size of an atom to the size of the observable universe in an instant..think of what that requires one to accept as possible and indeed the underlying fact upon which our cosmology rides..well not an instant but in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second not instant but so close to instant why not just say in an instant.
Without inflation the theory fails so surely this aspect of the story must require much more to establish that the theory in anyway reflects reality.
Honestly can one not conclude that such is unlikly if not down right impossible...sounds like science is simply accomodating preconceived notions of creation.
Alex
  #4  
Old 15-06-2019, 12:08 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
And what about the failed prediction of the abundance of lithium...its not there..failed prediction means the model fails...as far as I can see there is only one paper that addresses the absense of the predicted lithium...and it in effect says it was there but by such and such a process it is now all gone which satisfies the prediction ...sure so its not there and that proves that it was there and therefore the prediction of lithium is correct...but its not there..is that not the point????

I like the general premise of the steady state theory and believe those early detractors from the big bang theory complaining it was more a religious notion than real science were perhaps very close to the truth.
So steady state has some tiny problems so why cant thosr tiny problems be addressed with the same somewhat cavalier approach as those pushing the big bang...an eternal universe does not disobey the rules of energy conservation for a start.
Alex

Last edited by xelasnave; 15-06-2019 at 12:25 PM.
  #5  
Old 15-06-2019, 12:11 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Get me in the audience and I bet it could be an interesting session☺
Alex
  #6  
Old 15-06-2019, 12:16 PM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Get me in the audience and I bet it could be an interesting session☺
Alex
Only if you dress as Darth Vader! It is going to be like a Comic Con convention.
  #7  
Old 15-06-2019, 01:00 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by glend View Post
Only if you dress as Darth Vader! It is going to be like a Comic Con convention.
Given my current appearance dressing up as pretty well any comic character may indeed seem more normal.

Of course folk who even hint at another reality other than the one laid out by the big bang are attacked and marginalised whilst the audience takes no account of the environment in which the big bang theory grew.

The church was preoccupied for at least twenty years wondering how it could embrace yet another pagen idea that of the cosmic egg before the big bang was presented as a general hypothisis.

The multitudes are told it all came from firstly an observation that the universe was expanding which in itself must mean that everything started at a particular point...sounds reasonable but one must wonder if such an observation could not be explained to fit an entirely different context.

But unfortunately the extrapolation of the observed expansion did not really work..extrapolating on the observed rate of expansion must have the universe so old it could not be worked out... and more unfortunately that fact was not understood in the early stages of formulation of the theory...no the Universe may be expanding in accordance with the current observations however it gets us nowhere..nowhere unless you add a period of super super super fast (may as well say instant) inflation where the universe grows from zip to larger than the observable universe... there is no steady reasonable expansion. .. think about that ...from zip to all we can see to more than the observable universe. ..pick a size at that insant...from zip to over 14 billion light years ...and sure that 14 billion is now approx 100 billion light years...and that is what we can observe..the universe however must have been much bigger for it to appear flat (not showing any hint of curvature due to some gravity limit is the short way of putting it)...so much bigger you can only guess..yet all that in an instant...but that is the evolution of the universe that current cosmology is treating as fact..yes as fact...science uses the word theory in place of a laymans term meaning absolute certainty...you may as well throw out the words scientific theory and insert...100% established unarguable fact..think about that when you hear big bang theory and more particularly the words..the theory of inflation...no observation accompanies the theory of inflation...none... without the theory of inflation the big bang theory fails..yes fails...which to me explains why when threatened of being thrown in the bin because of insurmountable problems the big bang brigade accepted and endorsed the theory of inflation..that reeks of something other than science...really is it even a hypothisis..the universe , a finite singularity (whatever that is) via the theory of inflation doubles and doubles and doubles and doubles until we get the numbers we need and in that process a finite object, the singularity, grows to become an infinite universe..err you can not double finite even by eleventy trillion trillion trillion to reach infinite... . How inconvenient...and I cant not see how the theory of inflation qualifies as a scientific theory..predictions can only be circular.

So ok General Relativity is said to support the big bang theory..GR is finally geometry and for all its grandness and complexity putting it out of reach for mere mortals it is no more than a co ordinate system...and think of this..you can build a good house or a crappy house using the same geometry...the design is the issue not the geometry so why gi e credibility to the big bang theory just because it employs good geometry..why? be ause the outcome was worked out and the geometry emoyed to add credibility.


I have no doubt GR can support an infinite universe just as well as a big bang universe..in fact when DrA came up with GR it supported a steady state model with the inclusion of his cosmogical constant.true..that was how science saw the universe..is it not interesting how he (DrA) dropped that notion ..not like scientists to drop something so quick...put it back in and you can have your (mine) eternal universe.

What could we discover if the big bang was not treated as an unquestionable fact...

Alex

Last edited by xelasnave; 15-06-2019 at 01:27 PM.
  #8  
Old 16-06-2019, 06:26 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
I would like to ask a question but I bet it would not be addressed....☺

Is the big bang theory credible given it relies upon the unsupported theory (is it even a theory) of inflation that requires the universe to come into existence and grow to certainly the size of the observable universe and given the observed flatness to a much much greater size than even that... in an instant..all we can see in an instant growing from the size of an atom to the size of the observable universe in an instant..think of what that requires one to accept as possible and indeed the underlying fact upon which our cosmology rides..well not an instant but in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second not instant but so close to instant why not just say in an instant.
Without inflation the theory fails so surely this aspect of the story must require much more to establish that the theory in anyway reflects reality.
Honestly can one not conclude that such is unlikly if not down right impossible...sounds like science is simply accomodating preconceived notions of creation.
Alex



The Universe did not grow to it's present size in an instant.
It grew from smaller than a proton to the size
of a grapefruit in an instant.
  #9  
Old 16-06-2019, 07:07 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
Size is all about perspective. Terms like grapefruit and instant are our descriptions. We don't know the truth and never will. Does the goldfish know it's in a bowl? We describe the universe as we can, but from outside our universe, and yes there very well could be an outside, it could be very small to observers who can see the bigger landscape. I recall the title, "A Mote in God's Eye".
Insignificant are we.
  #10  
Old 16-06-2019, 07:40 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
The Universe did not grow to it's present size in an instant.
It grew from smaller than a proton to the size
of a grapefruit in an instant.
Thank you for your post.

My rants on these matters are motivated my desire to learn more by presenting my interpretation of what I have read so as to get feed back hopefully from others who can offer a better interpretation.

Ok you have covered the "first" stage. I think I have read the inflationary epoch actually deals with growth (inflation) from the point where the Universe was indeed the size of a grapefruit.
It is my understanding the inflationary epoch as presented via "The Theory of Inflation" presents a model where the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit ( no doubt the theory would mention a specific size and probably made no reference to fruit) to the size of more than the observable universe in, again this is not taken from the paper outloning "The Theory of Inflation" but these words were used by Neil DeGrasse in a documentary whete he was in effect dumbing down the proposition outlined in that theory for laymen...his words as I recall was that the growth took place in "a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second" ..again the paper would no doubt use a specific time reference I expect however I think we can take it that the period of time allocated for this alledged inflationary event was a very very small fraction of a second...Neil did not call such a period of time instant but would it not be reasonable to extend the meaning of "instant" to be covered by a time period described as "a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second"...in any event perhaps you could point out if my understanding as I have tried to convey is close enough to the model presented in "The Theory of Inflation" to be a reasonably close representation of the model presented by Alan Guth known as the inflationary epoch....My understanding is as outlined so if I am in any way off the mark I would appreciate being corrected. If I am close to understandimg what the model presents I say it asks us to accept that the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit to the size of the universe thst we call the observable universe and further to all that which is outside the observable universe...further as I unferstand it that size is consideted infinite which irrespective of how you define or interpret " infinite" is extrodinarilary huge...so am I incorrect to say the big bang includes a period where its evolution includes a growth from the size of a grape fruit to perhaps infinite in "a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second" and further that there is no observation or proof that supports such a notion.
Please show me where I have it wrong else I am doomed to consider our cosmogy as based upon an unsupported unevidenced fact the absence of which makes the big bang model unworkable.
I find the proposition of the big bang most unlikely if it relies upon the growth suggested given no observation or proof is provided to support such a claim.
Thanks for your interest...
Alex
  #11  
Old 16-06-2019, 07:45 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Please overlook any errors which come from typing a hurried response on a small phone using big fingers☺ I have to go but will try and fix mistakes upon my return however I think one could be able to work out what I am daying close enough to determine my understanding.
Thanks.
Alex
  #12  
Old 16-06-2019, 07:48 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Perhaps a moderator could create a new thread and take my input and place it there as I really got carried away and now realise I am sidetracking the thread.
My appologies.
Alex
  #13  
Old 16-06-2019, 08:09 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
I had another look and what you daid is correct and I must look again to find whete I got my idea re after grapefruit size...but later...I have things to do and retracing my steps no doubt will take a long time...maybe someone can explain what took place after we get to grape fruit size☺
Alex
  #14  
Old 16-06-2019, 01:06 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Thank you for your post.

My rants on these matters are motivated my desire to learn more by presenting my interpretation of what I have read so as to get feed back hopefully from others who can offer a better interpretation.

Ok you have covered the "first" stage. I think I have read the inflationary epoch actually deals with growth (inflation) from the point where the Universe was indeed the size of a grapefruit.
It is my understanding the inflationary epoch as presented via "The Theory of Inflation" presents a model where the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit ( no doubt the theory would mention a specific size and probably made no reference to fruit) to the size of more than the observable universe in, again this is not taken from the paper outloning "The Theory of Inflation" but these words were used by Neil DeGrasse in a documentary whete he was in effect dumbing down the proposition outlined in that theory for laymen...his words as I recall was that the growth took place in "a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second" ..again the paper would no doubt use a specific time reference I expect however I think we can take it that the period of time allocated for this alledged inflationary event was a very very small fraction of a second...Neil did not call such a period of time instant but would it not be reasonable to extend the meaning of "instant" to be covered by a time period described as "a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second"...in any event perhaps you could point out if my understanding as I have tried to convey is close enough to the model presented in "The Theory of Inflation" to be a reasonably close representation of the model presented by Alan Guth known as the inflationary epoch....My understanding is as outlined so if I am in any way off the mark I would appreciate being corrected. If I am close to understandimg what the model presents I say it asks us to accept that the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit to the size of the universe thst we call the observable universe and further to all that which is outside the observable universe...further as I unferstand it that size is consideted infinite which irrespective of how you define or interpret " infinite" is extrodinarilary huge...so am I incorrect to say the big bang includes a period where its evolution includes a growth from the size of a grape fruit to perhaps infinite in "a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second" and further that there is no observation or proof that supports such a notion.
Please show me where I have it wrong else I am doomed to consider our cosmogy as based upon an unsupported unevidenced fact the absence of which makes the big bang model unworkable.
I find the proposition of the big bang most unlikely if it relies upon the growth suggested given no observation or proof is provided to support such a claim.
Thanks for your interest...
Alex



I'm not a cosmologist so I'm not really qualified to comment.
There are 1000s of articles on it:
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/i...beginners.html
  #15  
Old 16-06-2019, 02:36 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
I'm not a cosmologist so I'm not really qualified to comment.
There are 1000s of articles on it:
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/i...beginners.html
Most interesting link. Thank you.
Alex
  #16  
Old 16-06-2019, 04:34 PM
Multiverse (Grant)
Registered User

Multiverse is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Wollongong (Woonona) NSW
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by casstony View Post
Essential viewing, a panel full of scientists including Brian Cox, with no idiots to distract from useful conversation.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/
Unlike a few years back on Q&A when Richard Dawkins had to tolerate a rambling idiot called George Pell.
The panel tomorrow is a great line-up of scientists, will be watching.
  #17  
Old 16-06-2019, 04:56 PM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 4,493
We've had to tolerate idiots for a few years courtesy of extremists in the Liberal party. I'm hoping the ABC will ignore that pressure in future.

I doubt Brian would agree to be on the panel if it included the likes of Malcom Roberts again.
  #18  
Old 16-06-2019, 05:01 PM
Multiverse (Grant)
Registered User

Multiverse is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Wollongong (Woonona) NSW
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by casstony View Post
We've had to tolerate idiots for a few years courtesy of extremists in the Liberal party. I'm hoping the ABC will ignore that pressure in future.

I doubt Brian would agree to be on the panel if it included the likes of Malcom Roberts again.
Agreed, I saw that episode, it would look good on Malcom Robert's CV but not so good on Brian's.
  #19  
Old 17-06-2019, 11:20 PM
Multiverse (Grant)
Registered User

Multiverse is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Wollongong (Woonona) NSW
Posts: 63
Was a great episode, very clever panel all round.
Prof Brian Cox has a passion for science that is contagious & he has a great manner to get points across to anyone, including children - our next generation of scientists. He has the essential sense of wonder, the modern day Carl Sagan.
It almost got derailed when compare Tony Jones went all glass-eyed & mystic mentioning to Brian Cox some people think the gods did everything.
The strangest letdown is the Twitter feed banner at bottom of screen that enables the ignorant idiot factor to creep through. The ABC must be liking this to get their ratings. This idea that anyone's (including the uniformed/over-opinionated) say is valid is a retrograde step for true knowledge. I was almost expecting a tweet there from Trump.
  #20  
Old 18-06-2019, 03:52 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiverse View Post
Was a great episode, very clever panel all round.
Prof Brian Cox has a passion for science that is contagious & he has a great manner to get points across to anyone, including children - our next generation of scientists. He has the essential sense of wonder, the modern day Carl Sagan.
It almost got derailed when compare Tony Jones went all glass-eyed & mystic mentioning to Brian Cox some people think the gods did everything.
The strangest letdown is the Twitter feed banner at bottom of screen that enables the ignorant idiot factor to creep through. The ABC must be liking this to get their ratings. This idea that anyone's (including the uniformed/over-opinionated) say is valid is a retrograde step for true knowledge. I was almost expecting a tweet there from Trump.
Well said and I expect you had me in mind when thinking of the uninformed and over opinionated so thank goodness I am bathed in humility☺.
The folk I find interesting are the young Earth creationists who reject "Dawinists" on the basis that one animal could not possibly give birth to another different animal and therefore reject the theory of evolution, which statement reveals they know absolutely zip about the concept whatsoever. Their view of history limits the avaiable time for species "evolving" to a mere 6000 years. It is so unfortunate those sad folk have been brain washed from an early age to reject modern research and knowledge in favour of unknown authors from ancient times who did not even know where the Sun went at night and that disease was caused by deamons... together with a long list of various primitive superstitions...and upon demonstrating their willful ignorance demand that inteligent design be taught in science class as an alternative. A sneaky attempt to back door their superstitious world view. The really sad thing is rational thinkers are told they should respect "faith" which is exactly the same as telling people to respect an approach that calls for the total abandonment of reason logic and the requirement that extaordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence in support.
And if you look at those who reject climate change and asert that NASA tells lies you will find their stand is predicated by their superstitious faith that mr invisable magic man will take care of the non existent problem. And yet we must respect people of faith.
Alex

Last edited by xelasnave; 18-06-2019 at 04:02 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement