Q&A on ABC Monday 17th June

[casstony]

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

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/

[glend]

But no one is listening, other than the Freaks and Geeks. The audience will be interesting.

[xelasnave]

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

[xelasnave]

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

[xelasnave]

Get me in the audience and I bet it could be an interesting session☺
Alex

[glend]

Only if you dress as Darth Vader! It is going to be like a Comic Con convention.:rofl:

[xelasnave]

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

[alpal]

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.

[glend]

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.

[xelasnave]

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

[xelasnave]

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

[xelasnave]

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

[xelasnave]

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

[alpal]

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/inflation-beginners.html

[xelasnave]

Most interesting link. Thank you.
Alex

[Multiverse]

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.

[casstony]

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.

[Multiverse]

Agreed, I saw that episode, it would look good on Malcom Robert's CV but not so good on Brian's.

[Multiverse]

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.

[xelasnave]

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

[casstony]

They're supplying evidence of how closely related we are to other animals on the planet. Collectively we're still a bunch of ning nongs barely clawing our way up the evolutionary tree.

[Multiverse]

Yes Alex, they hold up faith as some ultimate virtue - faith is really just a trait of the lazy, too lazy in primary school Year 5 to grasp the 'common ancestor' part of the lesson (don't know what they learn in catholic schools, is it walking on water, decomposing bodies rising up & walking around, virgins giving birth or other such nonsense)?
So many catholic school pupils are still put at a very distinct disadvantage from the woeful neglect of a proper education & some never really recover in later life, it can cloud their judgement forever (unfortunately some even become our prime ministers). Add to that the emotional torture of the young school child being told that they will go to a human though construct called 'hell' if they don't assimilate.
In the time of Shakespeare people thought thunder & lightning were the work of gods. Even today people deny the fossil evidence, the DNA evidence, geological evidence, biological evidence - just to name a few.
The human mind is very susceptible to stories (like a bible story), we relied upon story telling from our primate ancestors in Africa to relay important information to survive. Any story will do - it's how people can be stay transfixed & become emotionally invested to a movie fiction or a TV soap opera as if it were real, Hollywood banks on this human trait.

I misjudged the Q&A compare Tony Jones. Upon further investigation I deduce that he must have mentioned gods just to keep it interesting (all about rating of course) see below, my source - Tony Jones Wikipedia;

Religion and philosophy
On Lateline, Jones told atheist advocate Christopher Hitchens that he plans to give the book Letters to a Young Contrarian to his own sons as "something I really hope that they then pass [on] to their children".[10]

Anyone who endorses the Hitch has got my respect!

[xelasnave]

Hi Grant
May I perhaps embarrass you by saying that is one of the best posts that I have ever had the pleasure of reading here.
It is easy to form a conclusion about someone based on something they have said which may be their way of stimulating conversation. And as you say anyone who holds Hitch as perhaps one of the most rational thinkers of our age probably has a reasonable view of the world. He and Dawkins should be compulsory reading from pre school and perhaps some passages read from Hitch upon openning of parliment..how the current babble irritates me ...nonsence it be... If it were not for Hitch I would still be blaming a group whos name starts with N rather than lay the blame at the feet of a group (c) who preached hatred for generations of a group I shall call J. I had worked out most things but that is one horror where Hitch pointed to the real culprit. Sadly they continue to exist notwithstanding their cruel and terrible history.
You may understand the motivation for my bb ramblings and rants better if you consider my concerns evolve from observing the involvement of c☺ and their continued theft of Pagan stories and determination to prove creation...I much prefer an eternal universe ... one that requires no point of creation.
I look at the sovereign citizen movement and find their nonsence can be traced to an unsupported notion of god given rights and so it was of interest when I notived a certain senator with dual citizen ship problems indicated by deed he was perhaps of that following...perhaps he had three citizenships to contend with☺. Their refusal to follow the legitimate laws and statutes reflects the abdication of personal responsibility one must associate with those the focus of Hitch and Dawkins.
I think I have watched every Hitch and Dawkins youtube video...many twice...and today I think I will watch a couple more/again to remind myself yet again what a problem each of these men talk about.
Thanks for your post I truely enjoyed it.
Alex

[Multiverse]

I have a bookshelf populated by writings from Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett & Sam Harris - The Four Horsemen.
Yes you're right Alex, watching a Hitchens Youtube debate never grows old!

[Sunfish]

Thanks also to you Tony.

ABC catchup definitely worth my 10 cents. And the panel’s ten cents adds up to priceless.

[Renato1]

It transpires that Dr. David Karoly's widely reported "Slam Dunk" against Alan Jones on Q&A was actually an own goal.

Jones provides the evidence in the video below.
Seems compelling to me, else I'd have to disbelieve Karoly's own words.
Cheers,
Renato

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4

[Renato1]

Do I detect Anti-Catholicism in your discussion?

Perhaps you haven't noticed that non-Roman Catholic Christians - Orthodox and Protestant - believe in pretty much the same thing, and some have their own schools too, or are taught it in special religious classes.

PM Malcolm Turnball was an Anglican who converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Bill Shorten was a Roman Catholic who converted to Anglicanism.
Scott Morrison is a Pentecostal, and Anthony Albanese describes himself as a non-practicing Catholic.

Religion or religious values seem to be or have been a motivating factor for people to aspire to positions where they can do something to help their fellow citizens in accordance with their political views (which is usually what they promise to do in election campaigns). Is that a bad thing, or have they never really recovered?

A year and half ago, I was listening to talkback radio where they were discussing a recent study that looked at long term outcomes for students who went to different sorts of schools.
Results:
a. Those that went to State schools were ho hum.
b. Those who went to private schools made more money.
c. And those who went to Catholic schools had higher life satisfaction.

The radio host was asking Catholics to ring in trying to find out why life was more satisfying for them.

Which all seems in sharp contrast to the huge disadvantages from which they never recover proposition, that you assert is the case. Any reason why they should have a "proper education" and forego higher life satisfaction? The desire for equity in life outcomes perhaps?
Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

Citing a talk back show really offers no indication of the reality and perhaps those findings were "found" by someone with an interest in the out come. Could be something akin to intelligent design advocates finding that a great majority of scientists support intelligent design which is perhaps somewhat suspect. In any event a talk back show is hardley authority for anything.
One wonders why anyone with a decent education would still follow ancient superstition however in the case of polititians perhaps their motivation can be seen as the same thing that drives all their actions words and deeds whoch of course is the desire to get votes...
Alex

[xelasnave]

Mind you I do think any system that allows one to abdicate personal responsibility and blame others for their failures and magic for their sucesses may be helpful to some folk who cant be bothered to study the history and seek evidence of the realities both good and bad and moreover what is indeed the truth.
Interestingly Western religions find their basis in astronomy or rather astrology starting first with observing the Sun stars and planets and personifying their behavior to create various human gods.
But dont believe me study the history of religion and perhaps build such decisions of what is valid or not on the available evidence rather than faith...I find the subject particularly interesting and think it is a shame we should not discuss it here as I am sure even though everyone has different ideas we could discuss it sensibly.
Alex

[PS19.1]

Its way too complicated and perfect to have evolved from an explosion,for me and many others its quite clear in this particular topic that its easier to have faith in God than faith in the scientific theories which as time goes on seem to find it not easier but more difficult to explain.