Atheists who love Science!

Information

Atheists who love Science!

A group for science enthusiasts of all types -- professionals, amateurs, students, anybody who loves science.

Members: 1581
Latest Activity: yesterday

Whether you're a professional, a student, an amateur, an enthusiast, whatever! Lots of atheists love science. Might as well have a group for it!

Feel free to nerd out, link articles, talk about your favorite field of research, whatever!

The icon is from www.wearscience.com.


9/28/2008
I've been super busy with school this semester -- no time for Atheist Nexus, sadly!!
If anyone who's around here a lot wants me to toss them moderation privileges to run this group or anything, just send me (Sara) a message! Thanks!

11/14/2009
Removed ability to send mass messages to everyone in the group. At 1000+ members, that seems like asking for spam.

Offer still open if anyone active in the group wants moderation privileges, but it appears everything has been going smoothly with all kinds of great discussions without moderation. Fantastic! :)

Discussion Forum

Quick Ebola tests on the horizon

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by FlyGirl yesterday. 2 Replies

Tenured Professor shouts "Fire!" in crowded theatre

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by David Layton Sep 27. 4 Replies

Max Planck on New Scientific Truth?

Started by Tom Sarbeck. Last reply by Luara Aug 13. 5 Replies

Lead Ebola Doctor In Sierra Leone Contracts It Himself

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Sentient Biped Jul 23. 3 Replies

Electric Bacteria

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Luara Jul 18. 3 Replies

Vantablack

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Sean Murphy Jul 15. 1 Reply

Roundup Ready Corn IS Toxic

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 13. 7 Replies

Crowded rooms make you dumb

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Pat Jul 5. 4 Replies

American Lysenkoism

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 6. 1 Reply

Big Bang, its limits, and being OK with "I don't know"

Started by Gregory Phillip Dearth. Last reply by Idaho Spud May 25. 62 Replies

Decline of Evidence-Based Medicine

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Luara May 16. 6 Replies

Canadian war on science

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck May 14. 2 Replies

Nuke close call in 1961

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 11. 3 Replies

Green Tea Boosts Brainpower

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 11. 3 Replies

Link Discovered Between Prostate Cancer and Vitamin D Deficiency

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 11. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheists who love Science! to add comments!

Comment by Chuck in TN on March 14, 2014 at 6:30pm

Patricia - Haha! That certainly reinforces my opinion that all religions are silly. Yes, even those that worship cats. ;-)

Comment by Patricia on March 14, 2014 at 2:39pm

Chuck.....how about Cat-lick-ism.......

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 14, 2014 at 1:22pm

I am awake typically at night, so feel free to ask questions and I will gladly drop science bombs for you.  Tom was cool and graciously bowed out. No biggie. Post your questions and I will get answers overnight. I am an atheist that happens to be reasonably well versed in quantum mechanics, various cosmological models (I favor the Big Bang), abiogenesis, and a little evolutionary biology (enough to know what I am talking about). I wrote a book in lamans terms on various topics that arise in debates with theists too. Published on Amazon for Kindle.

Comment by Chuck in TN on March 14, 2014 at 1:09pm

@ Joan - The only religion that I am interested in is Dudeism and it, like all other religions, is silly too. (but in a good way - IMHO)

Comment by Chuck in TN on March 14, 2014 at 1:04pm

I think Gregory "blinded Tom with science"..........or something.

You can lead a horse to water.......

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 14, 2014 at 12:42pm

Well, I assume you two know what you write about and it is just a bunch of words to me. That is a reflection of my inadeq1uacy, not yours. 

Thanks, Gregory, for reminding of that great video of Krauss and Dawkins. I suppose the science will be explained so that mere mortals can understand it, and I look forward to that time. 

Surely the best explainer is Krauss. 

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 14, 2014 at 5:12am

I like how you have repeatedly ignored my challenge that "The PCM requires Birkeland currents that simply do not exist to be consistent (among other things it predicts). Whereas I have repeatedly read your entire posts and replied point-by-point, you continue the troll-style replies. For this reason I am discontinuing my discussion with you as I am finding it fruitless.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 14, 2014 at 4:39am

Wow. Skim much? Yes, I am long winded, but taking me out of context exposes a lack of integrity on your part. You obviously also skimmed the wikipedia entry on the Doppler effect, which I did not have to reference in my explanation thereof as again, I have confirmed its application to electromagnetic waves in a rather simple set of experiments in high school. From the primary wiki page on the Doppler effect (took me 10 seconds to find this) "Hippolyte Fizeau discovered independently the same phenomenon on electromagnetic waves in 1848 (in France, the effect is sometimes called "effet Doppler-Fizeau" but that name was not adopted by the rest of the world as Fizeau's discovery was six years after Doppler's proposal)." page address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

So it was independently discovered to be applicable and not even called the Doppler effect until the analogy stuck later. So when we say "the Doppler effect" in reference to electromagnetic waves red/blue shifts we are using the term as a convention, not as its original use (which was sound). 

And if you wiki the Big Bang, there is a rather decent explanation there including copious references. For example, "Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models." So Hoyle coined the term though he preferred the steady state model. A British astronomer. Catholic priest? Maybe that was his part time job...

Again, you strawman the Big Bang theory with your phrasing: "From an atom, the universe" paraphrases "From nothing, everything" and makes the BBCM ridiculous.

The singularity was not an atom. It was space and time itself compacted. And most cosmologists do not actually believe in any singularity as an actual state, just as a logical consequence of rewinding the expanding universe. Still, there is a big difference between that and an atom.

Nothing to everything? That is not even remotely accurate. No part of the Big Bang model requires nothing as a precondition. I would recommend Lawrence Krauss for a good explanation of why this 'nothing' misconception is just plain wrong. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

What is most alarming is that you completely missed the point when I explained the argument from incredulity fallacy and even requoted my example it is hard to imagine, therefore....

YOU are committing this fallacy by choosing to not accept the Big Bang model simply because you find it ridiculous or cannot understand it (the latter of which is becoming overwhelmingly evident).

And as you keep appealing to the term faith in this discussion, I am lead to believe you are, in fact, an apologist troll.

And Occam's razor is a good philosophy in general, but just as quantum mechanics is a horribly complicated FACT, the correct explanation is not ALWAYS the simplest explanation. Its a rule of thumb, not a law of nature.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 14, 2014 at 2:06am

That is fine, Tom. I too have been involved (in the distant past) in alternative cosmology (see grouptheorycosmos.com). I see no problem with challenging the paradigm.

When deciding which theory is the "best", however, you typically end up with some version of the Big Bang, perhaps with some plasma theory sprinkled in, and using a string theory unification for gravity.

A major misconception people have is that the singularity was just the contents of the universe compacted. In fact, space itself (and time) were also curled up and compacted. It might be hard to imagine, but that does not make it impossible. It would be a logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity to state that 'it is hard to imagine, therefore....' But basically, the ridiculously small size of the singularity is meaningless as space, which makes size meaningful and measurable was ALSO compacted. So you have all of the contents and the very fabric of the universe itself ALL compacted. Compacted is probably a problematic term itself as we have to ask ourselves what the universe, in this state, was compacted relative to.


Finally, the Big Bang theory does NOT give us any description or information of the singularity itself. Rather the Big Bang theory starts at one Planck time AFTER the event. The Big Bang Singularity Hypothesis posits the existence of this ridiculously small state. And how that singularity got there is also a matter of hypothesis at this time.

The point is that there are possible alternatives. But when choosing a theory to believe in (and fund with grants), well, one should go where the evidence leads them which currently seems to be the Big Bang model.

The PCM requires Birkeland currents that simply do not exist to be consistent (among other things it predicts). Sure, the BBCM requires dark energy and dark matter to be consistent regarding the inflation, but there is good data coming in on this subject already, and we should continue investigating it further given that the REST of the BBCM is so far as we can tell SPOT ON. PCM seems to hold as much weight as neo-Lorentzian Theory in that it claims to be able to do the same job of BBCM, if you only ignore the fact that it requires the universe to operate in different ways than we observe. Still, the effects of plasma on a large scale might be useful, though I think you might not realize that the filament structure has a better explanation already.

That said, PCM will get a LOT of attention if we ever do reproduce these Birkeland currents in the lab, just as the multiverse hypothesis will get a LOT more attention if we manage to eject matter/energy from our universe in some critical collision in the LHC.

I don't want to come off as mean and make statements without value. I stand to be corrected myself, and intend on keeping such conversations going so we can educate each other.  I had not heard of the PCM until you mentioned it and found much of the theory quite interesting and promising (still reading it). Just a few hurdles to overcome there, but how was that any different than BBCM of a few decades ago?

Einstein's cosmological constant turned out to be useful, though he thought it was a mistake when he had to invoke it in his equations. Weirder things have happened. But don't expect BBCM to be competlike Bryonely rejected in favor of PCM or any other alternative theory until these alternative cosmological models can account for the ridiculous amount of observations, predictions, and incorporate the 'apparent reality' of our expanding universe into their framework.

Comment by Sean Murphy on March 14, 2014 at 1:10am

That's funny, I majored in math and physics too, yeah, in fact I BS'd in both. No, actually I went on to PhD in both, and am now a tenured professor at- eh, enough feeding the troll. All I actually have is a BA in Psychology (I lazed out in college), but the Doppler Effect that you demonstrated that you don't understand in your earlier post is grade school science,and is really quite simple.

 

Members (1581)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service