What if the universe had no beginning?

Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.” But we might not need a singularity to have a Big Bang, according to a new study. Image via mondolithic.com

Are you seeing the stories this week suggesting that the Big Bang didn’t happen? According to astrophysicist Brian Koberlein – a great science communicator at Rochester Institute of Technology with a popular page on G+ – that’s not quite what the new research (published in early February 2015 Physics Letters B, has suggested. The new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang, Koberlein says. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. How can this be? Koberlein explains on his website:

The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’

The new model – in which our universe has no beginning and no end – comes from Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Their paper looks at a result derived from Einstein’s theory of general relativity known as the Raychaudhuri equation. Koberlein says:

Basically his equation describes how a volume of matter changes over time, so its a great way of finding where physical singularities exist in your model. But rather than using the classical Raychaudhuri equation, the authors use a variation with a few quantum tweaks. This approach is often called semi-classical …

The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model. Koberlein says:

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

One appealing feature of the new paper is that it also predicts a cosmological constant, a concept originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his theory of general relativity keep the universe static, rather than expanding, but he later abandoned the concept as his “greatest blunder” after Edwin Hubble’s 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our Local Group are moving away from each other. The idea of a cosmological constant was discarded for some decades, but, since the 1990s, developments in cosmology have revived the idea that we need one to explain the universe as we observe it. In Ali and Das’ new model, a cosmological constant provides a proposed mechanism for the mysterious dark energy known to pervade space and cause an observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

So Big Bang theory is alive and well. And, Koberlein says:

While this is an interesting model, it should be noted that it’s very basic. More of a proof of concept than anything else. It should also be noted that replacing the Big Bang singularity with an eternal history isn’t a new idea. Many inflation models, for example, make similar predictions.

Still, it’ll be interesting to see if this model ignites interest among cosmologists and ultimately contributes to altering our thinking about a Big Bang singularity, which has been a fact of most of our lives since we were born. Big ideas like this do change, and it’ll be fun to see if this one does!

View larger. | Time line of the universe via NASA/WMAP Science Team

Bottom line: Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.” But we might not need a singularity to have a Big Bang, according to a new study by Ahmed Farag Ali in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das in Canada. The catch – according to astrophysicist Brian Koberlein – is that, without the singularity, this model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.

Via Phys.org and astrophysicist Brian Koberlein.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/17ar0oP

Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.” But we might not need a singularity to have a Big Bang, according to a new study. Image via mondolithic.com

Are you seeing the stories this week suggesting that the Big Bang didn’t happen? According to astrophysicist Brian Koberlein – a great science communicator at Rochester Institute of Technology with a popular page on G+ – that’s not quite what the new research (published in early February 2015 Physics Letters B, has suggested. The new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang, Koberlein says. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. How can this be? Koberlein explains on his website:

The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’

The new model – in which our universe has no beginning and no end – comes from Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. Their paper looks at a result derived from Einstein’s theory of general relativity known as the Raychaudhuri equation. Koberlein says:

Basically his equation describes how a volume of matter changes over time, so its a great way of finding where physical singularities exist in your model. But rather than using the classical Raychaudhuri equation, the authors use a variation with a few quantum tweaks. This approach is often called semi-classical …

The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model. Koberlein says:

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

One appealing feature of the new paper is that it also predicts a cosmological constant, a concept originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his theory of general relativity keep the universe static, rather than expanding, but he later abandoned the concept as his “greatest blunder” after Edwin Hubble’s 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our Local Group are moving away from each other. The idea of a cosmological constant was discarded for some decades, but, since the 1990s, developments in cosmology have revived the idea that we need one to explain the universe as we observe it. In Ali and Das’ new model, a cosmological constant provides a proposed mechanism for the mysterious dark energy known to pervade space and cause an observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

So Big Bang theory is alive and well. And, Koberlein says:

While this is an interesting model, it should be noted that it’s very basic. More of a proof of concept than anything else. It should also be noted that replacing the Big Bang singularity with an eternal history isn’t a new idea. Many inflation models, for example, make similar predictions.

Still, it’ll be interesting to see if this model ignites interest among cosmologists and ultimately contributes to altering our thinking about a Big Bang singularity, which has been a fact of most of our lives since we were born. Big ideas like this do change, and it’ll be fun to see if this one does!

View larger. | Time line of the universe via NASA/WMAP Science Team

Bottom line: Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.” But we might not need a singularity to have a Big Bang, according to a new study by Ahmed Farag Ali in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das in Canada. The catch – according to astrophysicist Brian Koberlein – is that, without the singularity, this model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.

Via Phys.org and astrophysicist Brian Koberlein.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/17ar0oP

The Big Picture of Eureka [Uncertain Principles]

No, not the little cover .jpg that I use as the “featured image” to tag these posts promoting Eureka. The post title refers to the Big Picture Science podcast from the SETI insitute. I’m one of the people interviewed in the latest episode, Maria Konnikova (author of Mastermind) and Louis Liebenberg.

This is another interview that was recorded remotely down at WAMC in Albany. They pushed back on my stock answers a little more than usual, which in one sense was fun, but was also pretty exhausting, as I was at the lowest point of the cold I’m just getting over now. I went home right after it finished, and napped for about two hours. So if I sound like I’m flagging a bit toward the end, well, that’s because I was…

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/16LM43H

No, not the little cover .jpg that I use as the “featured image” to tag these posts promoting Eureka. The post title refers to the Big Picture Science podcast from the SETI insitute. I’m one of the people interviewed in the latest episode, Maria Konnikova (author of Mastermind) and Louis Liebenberg.

This is another interview that was recorded remotely down at WAMC in Albany. They pushed back on my stock answers a little more than usual, which in one sense was fun, but was also pretty exhausting, as I was at the lowest point of the cold I’m just getting over now. I went home right after it finished, and napped for about two hours. So if I sound like I’m flagging a bit toward the end, well, that’s because I was…

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/16LM43H

The annals of “I’m not anti-vaccine,” part 13: Nobody wants to admit to being “antivaccine” [Respectful Insolence]

Sometimes, in order to understand advocates of pseudoscience, such as antivaccinationists, it’s a useful exercise to look at their most extreme elements. Admittedly, in focusing on such loons, one does take the risk of generalizing the nuts to everyone a bit much, but on the other hand I’ve often found that the extremists are basically like the less loony versions on steroids. The advantage, to me, is that they are unconcerned (for the most part) with hiding the craziness at the root of their beliefs. While, for instance, SafeMinds of the merry band of antivaccinationists at Age of Autism (well, most of them, anyway) can strategically hide or at least downplay the conspiracy theories at the core of their beliefs (and make no mistake, virtually all antivaccinationists—witness Bill Maher last Friday—have conspiracy theories at the core of their beliefs), the extreme ones can’t.

So it is that our favorite all-purpose medical crank (The One Crank To Rule Them All, if Alex Jones didn’t exist), Mike Adams, let loose about media coverage of the measles outbreak and vaccination. First up, he started out with an article on Saturday entitled National media wages psychological terror campaign against Americans to set stage for government destruction of medical choice. It’s very much like Bill Maher’s complaint about the media coverage of the measles outbreak and antivaccinations as “shut the fuck up” and his guest Marianne Williamson’s similar complaint that anyone who “questions” is being called antivaccine, only ramped up to 11 and beyond:

Following the staged terror attacks of 9/11, the national media whipped up the public’s anger and hatred against “terrorists” with a relentless psychological campaign of “news terror” against American citizens. This anger and hatred, of course, was necessary to garner public support for passage of the Patriot Act, arguably the most freedom-crushing piece of legislation ever signed into law in America.

This is, of course, almost exactly the same analogy used by Bill Maher who compared the “hysteria” over measles to the government and media’s behavior in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, with suppression of dissent. It’s a tactic used by antivaccinationists and cranks of all stripes that I like to call the “‘no debate’ debate.” Here’s a hint for Maher: If you don’t want to be perceived as a loon, don’t make the same analogies that loons like Mike Adams make, which he makes explicit here:

Fast forward to 2015. A relatively small measles outbreak is now being whipped up with another media scare campaign; this time blaming “anti-vaxxers” and equating them with terrorists. Just as with 9/11, the media completely ignore actual facts and are wholly opposed to any real investigation of things like mercury in flu shots, faked vaccine science and the CDC whistleblower’s admission of the vaccine-autism cover-up.

All real facts are thrown out the window, replaced by a media jihad against America which goes to great lengths to outright lie as often as possible. For example, Bloomberg.com knowingly misrepresents the medical freedom stance of Rand Paul, claiming Paul is opposed to vaccinations when, in reality, Paul supports vaccine choice.

Actually, no. Rand Paul is antivaccine. He simply cloaks his antivaccine views in the rhetoric of “health freedom,” as so many with antivaccine views who happen to lean libertarian do. The whole “freedom” thing is what I like to refer to as an antivaccine dog whistle.

Of course, Maher and the rest, including most antivaccinationists, know better than to go where Adams goes with this because, well, the crazy. But go there Adams does:

It’s crucial to understand that Adolf Hitler’s master race programs were conducted with the full support and advocacy of the world’s top scientists at the time. The Holocaust killings were all conducted under the banner of “SCIENCE!” And Berlin was arguably the world’s most advanced science Mecca, churning out an impressive list of physicists, chemists and biologists. It didn’t take long, of course, for most of these scientists to declare their support for eugenics and genocide. Importantly, Hitler’s genocide was framed as a program “for the betterment of society” — the exact same words used in America today to justify forced vaccination of children.

He even included this poster:

It’s basically one huge slippery slope argument, in which Adams claims that the government will use the same arguments it uses for vaccine mandates and to make sure that children whose parents refuse to treat their curable cancers don’t die in order to mandate:

• Forced euthanasia of the elderly


• Forced sterilizations of the mentally handicapped


• Forced mass killings of the physically handicapped


• Prison time for parents who disagree with doctors


• More government-run medical kidnappings of children


• Government-run medical experiments on prisoners

Yes, it’s all a massive Godwin. It’s also a statement of the distrust of the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies that cranks the paranoia up to 11 and beyond, but that paranoia is frequently lying under the surface of criticisms of pharma. Of course, I’m not saying that there’s not a lot to criticize in pharma. Ben Goldacre, for instance, has been brutal on the tactics used in the pharmaceutical industry, and it’s not always easy to recognize when reasonable criticisms devolves into conspiracy mongering. Adams provides an easy example. However, one way to recognize where reasonable criticism starts devolving into crankery is to look for the conspiracy theories.

Indeed, right on queue, Adams couldn’t resist a followup post entitled If vaccines are mandated today, what next medical transgression will the government demand of you tomorrow? He starts out with a rant about Obamacare and then segues into forced vaccination:

Now that the government has gotten away with the Obamacare racket, it’s trying to wipe out medical choice by staging an exaggerated nationwide fear campaign to lay the groundwork for passing mandatory vaccine laws. These laws would force you and your children to be injected with experimental vaccines containing toxic substances. By “experimental,” I mean that literally: Many vaccines on the market today have never been clinical tested for safety or efficacy, a fact which is readily admitted on the vaccine insert sheets as you can see for yourself in these photos.

Ah, yes, it’s the dreaded argument by package insert. I also can’t help but note that Maher made a similar argument in that he claimed that there was no long term study comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated children, a common antivaccine trope that feeds into various claims like the ones made above by Mike Adams and other antivaccinationists that vaccines aren’t adequately tested, that they aren’t tested together, that they are somehow synergistically dangerous.

Adams even includes an audio clip from Ron Paul, Rand Paul’s father:

If you want a more explicit statement of the libertarian position in which parental rights trump all, including public health, with respect to vaccines, you will be hard-pressed to find one. Note that this was just released yesterday. In it he makes the same sorts of pharma conspiracy theories and slippery slope arguments, but in the end asserts that any infringement on the parental right to decide about vaccines is the first step in a slippery slope towards medical fascism.

The simple point is that, although antivaccine views run a continuum, whenever you see someone making what he or she perceives to be “reasonable” objections to vaccines, it’s not very far to the crazy. Often, the reasonableness is just a thin veneer covering the conspiracy theories and outright pseudoscience.

But, admittedly, Mike Adams is an extreme example—intentionally so. Let’s step it back a bit.

One thing that really struck me about the whole Maher segment on Friday. At one point, one of the guests, Amy Holmes emphatically states, “I do not worship at the church of Jenny McCarthy.” Elsewhere, Marianne Williamson emphasized that she is not antivaccine. She even repeated it again on Twitter:

@gorskon I did not say that I was — nor am I — anti-vaccine. I simply said skepticism toward pharmaceutical companies is understandable

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) February 9, 2015

And, of course, Bill Maher repeated multiple times that he is not “antivaccine,” beginning right at the beginning of the segment when he says he’s “not antivaccine” but is “anti-flu shot.” Unfortunately, quite a few people who ostensibly consider themselves skeptics are willing to take that as sufficient evidence. For instance, on this thread on Facebook, where Skeptical Inquirer posted a link to my post, the most common complaint is that I was making a mountain out of a molehill, that because Bill says he’s not-anti-vaccine he’s not antivaccine:

Post by Skeptical Inquirer.

Of course, using this argument, Jenny McCarthy is not anti-vaccine. She’s said many, many times that she is “not antivaccine” but rather “pro-safe vaccine.” Do these same skeptics believe her? She probably does really believe that she is not antivaccine. Yet the evidence from her own words and deeds is overwhelming that she is definitely antivaccine. If you’re willing to accept Bill Maher’s word that he’s not antivaccine, then you shouldn’t consider Jenny McCarthy to be antivaccine either.

Of course, the tropes on display last Friday closely echoed Jenny McCarthy, making Holmes’ denial that she “worships at the church of Jenny McCarthy” all the more ridiculous. There were many of the anti-vaccine tropes that Jenny McCarthy is known for and that come straight out of the antivaccine play book, particularly as promulgated by people associated with Jenny McCarthy’s organization Generation Rescue:

• Anti-pharma conspiracy theories? Check.


• The “too many, too soon” gambit? Check.


• Claims that vaccines are loaded with toxins (excuse me, “chemicals”) and therefore harmful? Check.


• The call for a vaccinated/unvaccinated study? Check.


• Ignorant nonsense about how the immune system works? Check.


• Blaming pharma and government for the parental suspicions of vaccines? Check. If you don’t believe me, consider this “classic” quote from Jenny McCarthy: “I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their fucking fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s shit. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.” This is no different from what Marianne Williamson and Bill Maher were saying.

The bottom line is that very few antivaccinationists will admit they are antivaccine. They either delude themselves (like Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher) into thinking that they are not antivaccine, or they lie. So rare is it to find people who are antivaccine who will proudly proclaim that they are antivaccine that I tend to find such admissions oddly refreshing. As odious, ignorant, and misguided as such people are, at least they know what their beliefs about vaccines are and are willing to state them plainly, rather than deluding themselves into believe they are something they aren’t or strategically lying because they know the reaction of society to antivaccine views is (correctly) not kind.

In any case, the arguments made on Maher’s show last week would have been right at home on antivaccine websites such as Age of Autism, VaxTruth.org, The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, or even Whale.to. Heck, they would have been right at home on Mike Adams’ website NaturalNews.com, because sometimes Adams posts articles by other people that don’t amp the crazy up to 11 and beyond. But, again, let’s back it up. Let’s look at Age of Autism, where press coverage is explicitly criticized as being too pro-vaccine and Anne Dachel proclaims that the distrust of vaccines is fed by distrust of the media.

Few people want to be viewed as advocating something harmful to society, such as antivaccine views, which is why so few antivaccinationists will admit they are antivaccine. Bill Maher is no exception. Jenny McCarthy is no exception. Instead, they spin themselves as “pro-safe vaccine” and construct elaborate conspiracy theories to justify their views. In this, Bill Maher and Jenny McCarthy are more alike than Maher would ever admit.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1M9oY8f

Sometimes, in order to understand advocates of pseudoscience, such as antivaccinationists, it’s a useful exercise to look at their most extreme elements. Admittedly, in focusing on such loons, one does take the risk of generalizing the nuts to everyone a bit much, but on the other hand I’ve often found that the extremists are basically like the less loony versions on steroids. The advantage, to me, is that they are unconcerned (for the most part) with hiding the craziness at the root of their beliefs. While, for instance, SafeMinds of the merry band of antivaccinationists at Age of Autism (well, most of them, anyway) can strategically hide or at least downplay the conspiracy theories at the core of their beliefs (and make no mistake, virtually all antivaccinationists—witness Bill Maher last Friday—have conspiracy theories at the core of their beliefs), the extreme ones can’t.

So it is that our favorite all-purpose medical crank (The One Crank To Rule Them All, if Alex Jones didn’t exist), Mike Adams, let loose about media coverage of the measles outbreak and vaccination. First up, he started out with an article on Saturday entitled National media wages psychological terror campaign against Americans to set stage for government destruction of medical choice. It’s very much like Bill Maher’s complaint about the media coverage of the measles outbreak and antivaccinations as “shut the fuck up” and his guest Marianne Williamson’s similar complaint that anyone who “questions” is being called antivaccine, only ramped up to 11 and beyond:

Following the staged terror attacks of 9/11, the national media whipped up the public’s anger and hatred against “terrorists” with a relentless psychological campaign of “news terror” against American citizens. This anger and hatred, of course, was necessary to garner public support for passage of the Patriot Act, arguably the most freedom-crushing piece of legislation ever signed into law in America.

This is, of course, almost exactly the same analogy used by Bill Maher who compared the “hysteria” over measles to the government and media’s behavior in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, with suppression of dissent. It’s a tactic used by antivaccinationists and cranks of all stripes that I like to call the “‘no debate’ debate.” Here’s a hint for Maher: If you don’t want to be perceived as a loon, don’t make the same analogies that loons like Mike Adams make, which he makes explicit here:

Fast forward to 2015. A relatively small measles outbreak is now being whipped up with another media scare campaign; this time blaming “anti-vaxxers” and equating them with terrorists. Just as with 9/11, the media completely ignore actual facts and are wholly opposed to any real investigation of things like mercury in flu shots, faked vaccine science and the CDC whistleblower’s admission of the vaccine-autism cover-up.

All real facts are thrown out the window, replaced by a media jihad against America which goes to great lengths to outright lie as often as possible. For example, Bloomberg.com knowingly misrepresents the medical freedom stance of Rand Paul, claiming Paul is opposed to vaccinations when, in reality, Paul supports vaccine choice.

Actually, no. Rand Paul is antivaccine. He simply cloaks his antivaccine views in the rhetoric of “health freedom,” as so many with antivaccine views who happen to lean libertarian do. The whole “freedom” thing is what I like to refer to as an antivaccine dog whistle.

Of course, Maher and the rest, including most antivaccinationists, know better than to go where Adams goes with this because, well, the crazy. But go there Adams does:

It’s crucial to understand that Adolf Hitler’s master race programs were conducted with the full support and advocacy of the world’s top scientists at the time. The Holocaust killings were all conducted under the banner of “SCIENCE!” And Berlin was arguably the world’s most advanced science Mecca, churning out an impressive list of physicists, chemists and biologists. It didn’t take long, of course, for most of these scientists to declare their support for eugenics and genocide. Importantly, Hitler’s genocide was framed as a program “for the betterment of society” — the exact same words used in America today to justify forced vaccination of children.

He even included this poster:

It’s basically one huge slippery slope argument, in which Adams claims that the government will use the same arguments it uses for vaccine mandates and to make sure that children whose parents refuse to treat their curable cancers don’t die in order to mandate:

• Forced euthanasia of the elderly


• Forced sterilizations of the mentally handicapped


• Forced mass killings of the physically handicapped


• Prison time for parents who disagree with doctors


• More government-run medical kidnappings of children


• Government-run medical experiments on prisoners

Yes, it’s all a massive Godwin. It’s also a statement of the distrust of the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies that cranks the paranoia up to 11 and beyond, but that paranoia is frequently lying under the surface of criticisms of pharma. Of course, I’m not saying that there’s not a lot to criticize in pharma. Ben Goldacre, for instance, has been brutal on the tactics used in the pharmaceutical industry, and it’s not always easy to recognize when reasonable criticisms devolves into conspiracy mongering. Adams provides an easy example. However, one way to recognize where reasonable criticism starts devolving into crankery is to look for the conspiracy theories.

Indeed, right on queue, Adams couldn’t resist a followup post entitled If vaccines are mandated today, what next medical transgression will the government demand of you tomorrow? He starts out with a rant about Obamacare and then segues into forced vaccination:

Now that the government has gotten away with the Obamacare racket, it’s trying to wipe out medical choice by staging an exaggerated nationwide fear campaign to lay the groundwork for passing mandatory vaccine laws. These laws would force you and your children to be injected with experimental vaccines containing toxic substances. By “experimental,” I mean that literally: Many vaccines on the market today have never been clinical tested for safety or efficacy, a fact which is readily admitted on the vaccine insert sheets as you can see for yourself in these photos.

Ah, yes, it’s the dreaded argument by package insert. I also can’t help but note that Maher made a similar argument in that he claimed that there was no long term study comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated children, a common antivaccine trope that feeds into various claims like the ones made above by Mike Adams and other antivaccinationists that vaccines aren’t adequately tested, that they aren’t tested together, that they are somehow synergistically dangerous.

Adams even includes an audio clip from Ron Paul, Rand Paul’s father:

If you want a more explicit statement of the libertarian position in which parental rights trump all, including public health, with respect to vaccines, you will be hard-pressed to find one. Note that this was just released yesterday. In it he makes the same sorts of pharma conspiracy theories and slippery slope arguments, but in the end asserts that any infringement on the parental right to decide about vaccines is the first step in a slippery slope towards medical fascism.

The simple point is that, although antivaccine views run a continuum, whenever you see someone making what he or she perceives to be “reasonable” objections to vaccines, it’s not very far to the crazy. Often, the reasonableness is just a thin veneer covering the conspiracy theories and outright pseudoscience.

But, admittedly, Mike Adams is an extreme example—intentionally so. Let’s step it back a bit.

One thing that really struck me about the whole Maher segment on Friday. At one point, one of the guests, Amy Holmes emphatically states, “I do not worship at the church of Jenny McCarthy.” Elsewhere, Marianne Williamson emphasized that she is not antivaccine. She even repeated it again on Twitter:

@gorskon I did not say that I was — nor am I — anti-vaccine. I simply said skepticism toward pharmaceutical companies is understandable

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) February 9, 2015

And, of course, Bill Maher repeated multiple times that he is not “antivaccine,” beginning right at the beginning of the segment when he says he’s “not antivaccine” but is “anti-flu shot.” Unfortunately, quite a few people who ostensibly consider themselves skeptics are willing to take that as sufficient evidence. For instance, on this thread on Facebook, where Skeptical Inquirer posted a link to my post, the most common complaint is that I was making a mountain out of a molehill, that because Bill says he’s not-anti-vaccine he’s not antivaccine:

Post by Skeptical Inquirer.

Of course, using this argument, Jenny McCarthy is not anti-vaccine. She’s said many, many times that she is “not antivaccine” but rather “pro-safe vaccine.” Do these same skeptics believe her? She probably does really believe that she is not antivaccine. Yet the evidence from her own words and deeds is overwhelming that she is definitely antivaccine. If you’re willing to accept Bill Maher’s word that he’s not antivaccine, then you shouldn’t consider Jenny McCarthy to be antivaccine either.

Of course, the tropes on display last Friday closely echoed Jenny McCarthy, making Holmes’ denial that she “worships at the church of Jenny McCarthy” all the more ridiculous. There were many of the anti-vaccine tropes that Jenny McCarthy is known for and that come straight out of the antivaccine play book, particularly as promulgated by people associated with Jenny McCarthy’s organization Generation Rescue:

• Anti-pharma conspiracy theories? Check.


• The “too many, too soon” gambit? Check.


• Claims that vaccines are loaded with toxins (excuse me, “chemicals”) and therefore harmful? Check.


• The call for a vaccinated/unvaccinated study? Check.


• Ignorant nonsense about how the immune system works? Check.


• Blaming pharma and government for the parental suspicions of vaccines? Check. If you don’t believe me, consider this “classic” quote from Jenny McCarthy: “I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their fucking fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s shit. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.” This is no different from what Marianne Williamson and Bill Maher were saying.

The bottom line is that very few antivaccinationists will admit they are antivaccine. They either delude themselves (like Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher) into thinking that they are not antivaccine, or they lie. So rare is it to find people who are antivaccine who will proudly proclaim that they are antivaccine that I tend to find such admissions oddly refreshing. As odious, ignorant, and misguided as such people are, at least they know what their beliefs about vaccines are and are willing to state them plainly, rather than deluding themselves into believe they are something they aren’t or strategically lying because they know the reaction of society to antivaccine views is (correctly) not kind.

In any case, the arguments made on Maher’s show last week would have been right at home on antivaccine websites such as Age of Autism, VaxTruth.org, The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, or even Whale.to. Heck, they would have been right at home on Mike Adams’ website NaturalNews.com, because sometimes Adams posts articles by other people that don’t amp the crazy up to 11 and beyond. But, again, let’s back it up. Let’s look at Age of Autism, where press coverage is explicitly criticized as being too pro-vaccine and Anne Dachel proclaims that the distrust of vaccines is fed by distrust of the media.

Few people want to be viewed as advocating something harmful to society, such as antivaccine views, which is why so few antivaccinationists will admit they are antivaccine. Bill Maher is no exception. Jenny McCarthy is no exception. Instead, they spin themselves as “pro-safe vaccine” and construct elaborate conspiracy theories to justify their views. In this, Bill Maher and Jenny McCarthy are more alike than Maher would ever admit.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1M9oY8f

The Bright Side of the BICEP2 Story [Uncertain Principles]

I’ve done yet another piece for The Conversation, this one expanding on something I’ve been saying in interviews promoting Eureka: that knowing the process of science can help people sort good science from bad. In this particular case, I take the somewhat #slatepitch-y angle that the recent high-profile unraveling of the BICEP2 experiment’s claim to detect primordial gravitational waves is a good thing:

Along with general disappointment, the new announcement has prompted discussion of what, if anything, the BICEP2 team did wrong. Many commentators fault them for over-hyping their results to the mass media before peer review. Some even argue that this has dire consequences – astronomer Marcelo Gleiser says the announcement and revision “harms science because it’s an attack on its integrity,” giving “ammunition” to those who raise doubts about politically charged areas of science.

Looked at another way, though, the BICEP2 story may in fact be ammunition for supporters of science. BICEP2 shows how science is properly done, and makes it easier, not harder, to detect the pseudo-science of attempts to discredit science for political gain.

We tend to think of science as a collection of esoteric information, but science is best understood as a process for figuring out the workings of the universe. Scientists look at the world, think of models to explain their observations, test those models with further observations and experiment, and tell each other the results. This process is familiar and universal, turning up in everything from hidden-object books to sports. More importantly, we can recognize the process even in cases where we don’t understand all the technical details, and use that to distinguish real science from phony controversies.

This is worked out at greater length over there. It’s a little more explicitly political than I usually go for, but as I said, I’ve been using basically this line in a lot of the radio and podcast interviews I’ve done recently, so I jumped at a chance to write it out. So, you know, like the bloggers of old used to say, go read the whole thing.

(I’ve been really enjoying the process of writing these pieces (which is why I keep doing it)– doing topical stories with a tight word limit is kind of a fun challenge. I’m likely going to take an enforced break from this for a little bit, though, as I have student papers coming in and need to get to grading them. Which is probably good, lest I wake up one of these mornings and find I’ve turned into a journalist…)

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ASRMyb

I’ve done yet another piece for The Conversation, this one expanding on something I’ve been saying in interviews promoting Eureka: that knowing the process of science can help people sort good science from bad. In this particular case, I take the somewhat #slatepitch-y angle that the recent high-profile unraveling of the BICEP2 experiment’s claim to detect primordial gravitational waves is a good thing:

Along with general disappointment, the new announcement has prompted discussion of what, if anything, the BICEP2 team did wrong. Many commentators fault them for over-hyping their results to the mass media before peer review. Some even argue that this has dire consequences – astronomer Marcelo Gleiser says the announcement and revision “harms science because it’s an attack on its integrity,” giving “ammunition” to those who raise doubts about politically charged areas of science.

Looked at another way, though, the BICEP2 story may in fact be ammunition for supporters of science. BICEP2 shows how science is properly done, and makes it easier, not harder, to detect the pseudo-science of attempts to discredit science for political gain.

We tend to think of science as a collection of esoteric information, but science is best understood as a process for figuring out the workings of the universe. Scientists look at the world, think of models to explain their observations, test those models with further observations and experiment, and tell each other the results. This process is familiar and universal, turning up in everything from hidden-object books to sports. More importantly, we can recognize the process even in cases where we don’t understand all the technical details, and use that to distinguish real science from phony controversies.

This is worked out at greater length over there. It’s a little more explicitly political than I usually go for, but as I said, I’ve been using basically this line in a lot of the radio and podcast interviews I’ve done recently, so I jumped at a chance to write it out. So, you know, like the bloggers of old used to say, go read the whole thing.

(I’ve been really enjoying the process of writing these pieces (which is why I keep doing it)– doing topical stories with a tight word limit is kind of a fun challenge. I’m likely going to take an enforced break from this for a little bit, though, as I have student papers coming in and need to get to grading them. Which is probably good, lest I wake up one of these mornings and find I’ve turned into a journalist…)

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ASRMyb

Amazing video shows fiery destruction of robotic cargo ship

The European Space Agency released this wonderful video earlier this month (February 2, 2015). It shows the fiery re-entry of Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-4 Albert Einstein), which met its demise on November 2, 2013. It had delivered 7 tons of supplies to the International Space Station and was carrying away 1.6 tons of trash and used clothing.

The crew of ISS delivered this spectacular imagery of the fireworks as the ATV-4 slammed into Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. It was the first ATV re-entry video captured since ATV-1 Jules Verne re-entered in 2008.

ESA constructed and launched five ATVs to ISS as part of an international agreement with NASA and other agencies. The last one, named for the physicist Georges Lemaitre, is currently docked to ISS and being loaded with trash. Yesterday (February 9, 2015), ESA astronaut Samantha Christoforetti was scheduled to float into ATV Georges Lemitre to install a special infrared camera, set to capture unique interior views of that vehicle’s break-up on reentry. Neil Murray, who oversees the project for ESA, said in a press release:

The battery-powered camera will be trained on the Automated Transfer Vehicle’s forward hatch, and will record the shifting temperatures of the scene before it.

Recording at 10 frames per second, it should show us the last 10 seconds or so of the ATV. We don’t know exactly what we might see – might there be gradual deformations appearing as the spacecraft comes under strain, or will everything come apart extremely quickly?

Bottom line: A newly released video shows the fiery re-entry in November, 2013 of ESA’s space freighter ATV Albert Einstein. ESA released the video, which had been captured by astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS), in early February 2015. This week (February 9, 2015), ESA is installing a video infrared camera inside another of its Automated Transfer Vehicles, ATV Georges Lemaitre – which is currently docked with ISS – to capture that vehicle’s re-entry from the inside.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1y689QV

The European Space Agency released this wonderful video earlier this month (February 2, 2015). It shows the fiery re-entry of Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-4 Albert Einstein), which met its demise on November 2, 2013. It had delivered 7 tons of supplies to the International Space Station and was carrying away 1.6 tons of trash and used clothing.

The crew of ISS delivered this spectacular imagery of the fireworks as the ATV-4 slammed into Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. It was the first ATV re-entry video captured since ATV-1 Jules Verne re-entered in 2008.

ESA constructed and launched five ATVs to ISS as part of an international agreement with NASA and other agencies. The last one, named for the physicist Georges Lemaitre, is currently docked to ISS and being loaded with trash. Yesterday (February 9, 2015), ESA astronaut Samantha Christoforetti was scheduled to float into ATV Georges Lemitre to install a special infrared camera, set to capture unique interior views of that vehicle’s break-up on reentry. Neil Murray, who oversees the project for ESA, said in a press release:

The battery-powered camera will be trained on the Automated Transfer Vehicle’s forward hatch, and will record the shifting temperatures of the scene before it.

Recording at 10 frames per second, it should show us the last 10 seconds or so of the ATV. We don’t know exactly what we might see – might there be gradual deformations appearing as the spacecraft comes under strain, or will everything come apart extremely quickly?

Bottom line: A newly released video shows the fiery re-entry in November, 2013 of ESA’s space freighter ATV Albert Einstein. ESA released the video, which had been captured by astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS), in early February 2015. This week (February 9, 2015), ESA is installing a video infrared camera inside another of its Automated Transfer Vehicles, ATV Georges Lemaitre – which is currently docked with ISS – to capture that vehicle’s re-entry from the inside.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1y689QV

Ground segment update 13:00 CET

IXV Flight Director Gehard Billig, at the mission control centre (MCC) at Altec in Turin, reports:

We are going through some routine checks at the MCC today; we will do some final data flow tests with the ground tracking stations. Everything looks good from our side; in a phone call with Kourou and the ship yesterday, the same was confirmed from the other teams. The control room is filling up again with engineers! We will stop early today, because we will start in the early tomorrow, before 6:00 CET.

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1KDXiGR

v

IXV Flight Director Gehard Billig, at the mission control centre (MCC) at Altec in Turin, reports:

We are going through some routine checks at the MCC today; we will do some final data flow tests with the ground tracking stations. Everything looks good from our side; in a phone call with Kourou and the ship yesterday, the same was confirmed from the other teams. The control room is filling up again with engineers! We will stop early today, because we will start in the early tomorrow, before 6:00 CET.

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1KDXiGR

v

Time-lapse: IXV readies for launch

This time-lapse video shows IXV's preparation, fairing encapsulation, transfer to the Vega mobile gantry and upper composite integration on the Vega launcher, at Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, in January 2015. IXV will be launched 340 km into space on top of a Vega rocket, flight VV04, climbing to about 420 km before beginning a long glide back through the atmosphere. During the flight, IXV will test the latest technologies and critical systems to help guide the design of future spaceplanes.

Credit/Copyrights

Directed by Stephane Corvaja, ESA

Edited by Manuel Pedoussaut, Zetapress

Music: Hubrid-The Deep

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1vg14x4

v

This time-lapse video shows IXV's preparation, fairing encapsulation, transfer to the Vega mobile gantry and upper composite integration on the Vega launcher, at Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, in January 2015. IXV will be launched 340 km into space on top of a Vega rocket, flight VV04, climbing to about 420 km before beginning a long glide back through the atmosphere. During the flight, IXV will test the latest technologies and critical systems to help guide the design of future spaceplanes.

Credit/Copyrights

Directed by Stephane Corvaja, ESA

Edited by Manuel Pedoussaut, Zetapress

Music: Hubrid-The Deep

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1vg14x4

v