Message From Big Bang Revealed Tomorrow?

[RogueScholar]

Aside from the Big Bang cosmology implications, this study also points to another important concept. That concept being, evidence that gravity is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. It's taken for granted, but gravity is not part of "standard" quantum mechanics. Certainly, gravity plays no role in the models that make predictions in what I study, mainly pharmacological sciences. Anyway, I wanted to point out that this study has multiple implications.

[bornagainathiest]

Forrest,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

You really are a 'fish out of water' in this forum, aren't you? 

That was a rhetorical question, btw.  It harks back to the discussions we had shortly after you arrived here.   You can refresh your memory of them by following the steps I outlined for MerryG to take in post # 13 of this thread.  It's clear to me that you simply don't understand what effect your posts have on the injured and emotionally fragile people who come to Ex-C, looking for healing, peace of mind and escape from the mental torture they suffered as Born-Again Christians.  

 

The moral issue I have with you isn't about your personal standards of goodness or how you live outside of this forum.

I couldn't care less about your church attendance.   No.  The issue between us will be illuminated by your responses to the following points. 

 

1.

Please describe how you think anyone could possibly be hurt and distressed by reading your criticisms of orthodox science in this thread.

 

2.

Please describe the aims and purposes of this entire site and how these apply in the Science vs. Religion sub-forum.

 

3.

Please say why your freedom of expression should take precedence over the suffering of others.

 

4.

Please say why it's imperative for you to post here... when there are many other, more suitable sites for you to post in.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

Forrest,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

You really are a 'fish out of water' in this forum, aren't you? 

That was a rhetorical question, btw.  It harks back to the discussions we had shortly after you arrived here.   You can refresh your memory of them by following the steps I outlined for MerryG to take in post # 13 of this thread.  It's clear to me that you simply don't understand what effect your posts have on the injured and emotionally fragile people who come to Ex-C, looking for healing, peace of mind and escape from the mental torture they suffered as Born-Again Christians.  

 

The moral issue I have with you isn't about your personal standards of goodness or how you live outside of this forum.

I couldn't care less about your church attendance.   No.  The issue between us will be illuminated by your responses to the following points. 

 

 

BAA.

 

Your postings also tell a lot about your goodness, empathy, and shepherding of the wounded. I realize that there are some emotionally wounded in this forum including those still unconsciously clinging to some religious beliefs. I understand your concern.

 

I don't think it is unkind or hurtful of me to suggest that one should not put blind faith into almost anything including science. In time some of these theories I expect will change and no emotional attachment should be put into any of them, IMO.

 

As to your questions my friend.

 

1)  Please describe how you think anyone could possibly be hurt and distressed by reading your criticisms of orthodox science in this thread?

 

First of all I do not consider theory as orthodox science. To me "orthodox science" is the scientific process of research, experimenting, observing, measuring, interpreting, analyzing, formulating, calculating, and reasoning to come up with hypothesis. It is often called the scientific method.

 

Theories themselves are just the latest-and-greatest but not gospel. For this reason I think no one should get attached to any science theory in particular. I am particularly fond of natural selection, plate tectonics, and chemical theory as examples, but I realize that many details are missing from aspects of these theories, and some aspects of their teachings may be wrong.

 

If someone is trying to recover from the emotional attachment to religion and its obvious stupidity based upon one or another Bible and its teachings, I don't think they should replace their belief in religion with a belief in theory that also does not seem logical to them. If one is really interested in the "truth" then I believe the study of science is the first course of action one should take. Totally unlike religion, science is a self-correcting process whereby hypothesis and theories continually change over time usually by adding and replacing details, but sometimes by replacing an entire theory.. Sometimes in science one step might be taken backwards to later enable two steps forward.

 

I think if a new follower of science is aware of these facts they will not get hurt by considering the possibilities of scientific theories. It would be far better for them to trust in the scientific method itself rather than theories which continuously change over time.

 

2) Please describe the aims and purposes of this entire site and how these apply in the Science vs. Religion sub-forum.

 

This forum, like other forums, is a discussion forum. Where persons of some common interests get together and discuss various topics and categories. What nearly all have in common in this forum is that at one time we were all Christians of varying beliefs. As to this sub-forum category Science vs. Religion, I would expect to see many postings concerning the reasonableness of scientific thinking compared to the dogmatic teachings of religion.

 

Discussions on this site run the gamut of opinions concerning how study and knowledge improves life over dogmatic beliefs. 

 

3  Please say why your freedom of expression should take precedence over the suffering of others.

 

IMO this is not about my freedom of expression. It is an open discussion forum. In an open science discussion all opinions are welcomed. Many science and religious forums are run by a sort of majority consensus whereby moderators or others may warn a person if they don't like their opinions. All forums are run for the enjoyment of their members so that some members will not enjoy alternative opinions. It is seldom that it is stated in forum rules that alternative opinions are unwelcome, but moderators often make judgements and occasionally warn, suspend, or even ban members that they believe are or could be disruptive because or their alternative opinions.

 

One could never rightfully say that a mainstream position/ theory is wrong without qualification anymore than mainstream theorists could rightfully say, beyond doubt, that their theories are right.

 

In time theories can be proven such as the Earth is round, planets revolve around the sun, or disproved such as the Earth is flat theory But when science alone is being discussed then I think different opinions are needed so that the dogma of theory,  whether ultimately right or wrong, are not the only words of the discussion.

 

4) Please say why it's imperative for you to post here... when there are many other, more suitable sites for you to post in.

 

When there are threads or postings that interest me I like to add my two cents. I have gone weeks or months without posting in this forum. I often check in on a weekly basis when in the US or Canada, or sometimes on a monthly basis when outside Anglo America and Europe. When threads or postings are interesting to me I enjoy being part of the discussions here from time to time.

 

.....a smart-looking website isn't the same as published and peer-reviewed scientific papers.  They are the true gold-standard of science and scientific achievement.

.

"Q. Where are Forrest's peer-reviewed papers?"

 

Since you questioned it, here is a link to my latest published peer-reviewed paper last month. It was published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education in the February issue of the Journal of Applied Physics Research.

 

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603

 

Regards, Forrest

[Vigile]

Forrest,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

You really are a 'fish out of water' in this forum, aren't you? 

That was a rhetorical question, btw.  It harks back to the discussions we had shortly after you arrived here.   You can refresh your memory of them by following the steps I outlined for MerryG to take in post # 13 of this thread.  It's clear to me that you simply don't understand what effect your posts have on the injured and emotionally fragile people who come to Ex-C, looking for healing, peace of mind and escape from the mental torture they suffered as Born-Again Christians.  

 

The moral issue I have with you isn't about your personal standards of goodness or how you live outside of this forum.

I couldn't care less about your church attendance.   No.  The issue between us will be illuminated by your responses to the following points. 

 

1.

Please describe how you think anyone could possibly be hurt and distressed by reading your criticisms of orthodox science in this thread.

 

2.

Please describe the aims and purposes of this entire site and how these apply in the Science vs. Religion sub-forum.

 

3.

Please say why your freedom of expression should take precedence over the suffering of others.

 

4.

Please say why it's imperative for you to post here... when there are many other, more suitable sites for you to post in.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

With due respect BAA, this forum has always been a place that largely encourages the free exchange of ideas; even those that most of us disagree with.  I cringe at the thought that we would censor someone we don't agree with simply to protect the sensibilities of our membership.  I for one do not support in any way this idea of 'morality' you discuss here.

 

If an idea has merit, it will swim with the sharks.  If not, the sharks will destroy it.  Let this be our mantra, not censorship. 

 

 

[mwc]

     I'm not entirely sure what's going on (can't say I've been aware of "Pantheory" around the site) but I'm not digging the inquisition.

 

          mwc

[bornagainathiest]

Well Forrest,

 

It looks like I've misjudged things here.

 

I seem to have misread the actions and motivations of the Moderators, when they've intervened to protect the vulnerable and the sensitive.  Where they've given the well-being of these injured and hurting people a higher priority than the freedom of expression of other members.  Where they've introduced new guidelines and/or enforced sanctions to for the greater good of the whole, by limiting individual freedoms. 

 

Looks like I've messed up!

So please ignore any posts I've made that cast any of your words in a doubtful light, Forrest.  I unreservedly withdraw them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[FriendlyChristian]

http://www.caltech.edu/content/first-direct-evidence-inflation-and-primordial-gravitational-waves

 

According to Caltech, gravitational waves have been detected and they are the first direct evidence of Inflation.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/big-rumors-circulating-about-detection-of-primordial-gravity-waves/

 

According to the Arstechnica site, it's premature to say that the BICEP2 team has provided the first direct evidence of Inflation, as the press release declared. 

 

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/Proof-of-Inflationary-Universe-To-Be-Announced-Monday-250522521.html

 

And the comments between Robert l. Oldershaw and Frank Reed at the bottom of this page serve to illustrate a relevant point about this thread.  Whenever some BIG news is announced in scientific circles, the nay-sayers just pop right out of the woodwork and chant their usual mantras...

 

"Everyone else is wrong and I'm right!"

 

"It's only a theory!"

 

"Wait for another (enter value here) years and this will all change."

 

I think there was a lot of direct evidence of the inflationary model way before this (red Shift and cosmic background radiation are the two most, literally, direct evidences), .   But it's definitely neat to see how science triumphs once again!

 

Now if we can just figure out how to spin it to one world view's advantage or another. . . amiright? 

[mymistake]

 

 

Now if we can just figure out how to spin it to one world view's advantage or another. . . amiright? 

 

 

 

Why don't you try a website that is dedicated to a religion instead of one that is dedicated to people who have left a religion?

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

thanks

 

regards, Forrest

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Well Forrest,

 

It looks like I've misjudged things here.

 

I seem to have misread the actions and motivations of the Moderators, when they've intervened to protect the vulnerable and the sensitive.  Where they've given the well-being of these injured and hurting people a higher priority than the freedom of expression of other members.  Where they've introduced new guidelines and/or enforced sanctions to for the greater good of the whole, by limiting individual freedoms. 

 

Looks like I've messed up!

So please ignore any posts I've made that cast any of your words in a doubtful light, Forrest.  I unreservedly withdraw them.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Damn!  Having the ability to publish a retraction when one is wrong is, in my view, the one thing that puts science light-years ahead of religion.

 

Good job, BAA.