zapatos

No, although I am probably conflating them. My assumption is that most of the people on this site who belittle Christianity are secularists, but then they probably don't belittle due to their secularism. However, now that I think about it, maybe those who feel persecuted are also conflating them. It is often atheists, not Christians, who call for secularism when their child is asked to say a small prayer in school, or when a bible quote shows up in city hall. If the same people who call my beliefs a joke are those who fight to keep a bunch of 8 year olds from having a moment of silence, I can see where some might believe secularism is just another way to harass.

If as a Christian my only view of secularism was this web site, I would believe that I was being persecuted. The constant disdain, ridicule, and dismissal of Christian beliefs would lead me to believe I was being harassed due to my belief.

Not quite. He is saying that the man in the future will be wrong about some particular aspect of the universe. Similarly, if some intelligent life existed 13 billion years ago, I am quite sure they would understand something about the universe that we are incorrectly speculating about today. You haven't really explained why you have such a problem with that concept.

This is your assumption, not his. Don't lay that assumption on his doorstep. What do you mean 'care' about such a view. He looked at current evidence and followed it forward, just as others have followed it backward to the big bang. You are criticizing him for looking at evidence and using his training to make a prediction; just like all scientists do. Why pick on him and not every other scientist? Bullshit. Now you are suggesting he is making things up and are questioning his integrity. Or that he has no intelligence at all. He made the prediction based on evidence. Where is the evidence of your Turtle? He is showing no concern over anything at all that I can see. He is simply telling us what he thinks. I saw no hint of fear, concern, or anything else negative. If anything he seemed to be showing amazement at the universe. The signal will never arrive, no matter how long they wait. If the signal is travelling at c, it will never catch up to the galaxy whose distance is increasing at a rate greater than c. Why do you care what his motivation is? He is a scientist doing science, and trying to convey his wonder of the universe to those like me who could not figure it out on my own. He follows the evidence to its probable conclusion, knowing full well that he could be wrong. This particular post of yours only confirms in my mind that for some reason you either have a bias against Krauss, or you have no idea how scientists use evidence to make predictions.

This is why it appears to some you have a personal vendetta against Krauss. Please point out where Krauss says or implies his model of the universe is superior to the universe itself (although I have to admit I am uncertain how a model of a thing can be 'superior' to the thing itself). How do you reconcile your view with his statement that "We should realize that there's more we don't understand about the universe than we do."? To suggest that simply describing what he believes the future to hold means he somehow thinks his model is 'superior', does indeed make it appear that you are grasping at straws to criticize him.

He has been conveniently hiding from that question the entire thread. This is the third time he's been asked to define what constitutes a valid reason.

Which ones of these were not questions?

Why? Because I did the EXACT SAME THING as you did?

And for the second time in this thread I'd like to point out that things change. It is not possible for everyone to be right about everything. Information is lost over time. People in the future being wrong about their picture of the universe is no more unreasonable than us being wrong about how life on earth began or what species existed.

Evidently YOU have no honor. You have no problem calling into question the integrity of others without indication they have actually done anything wrong, yet you object when someone does the same to you. And I'm still curious as to what you know about the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Marks. I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Question is, how true will they be?

Not even close. If you are going to keep saying 'no' to posts I make please first check to make sure you are correct.

That is tough to parse. I think what they mean is: You see earth nine years forward of your depararture date, but by the time you get one light away, your departure date was 10 years ago. So you are still not seeing into the future. I think the point was that since you are travelling 0.1c for 10 years, over the course of the trip you have stayed ahead of one year's worth of light coming from the earth, so even though you travelled for 10 years, you see the earth as it was 9 years ago instead of 10.

Well, not everything. Just those things that you are moving very fast relative to. If something else is at rest relative to you then their clock does not seem to be running slowly. To another object you may be moving at .05c. What do you mean by 'see into the future'?

So you insist you are right and it is not just a difference of opinion. No, you are indeed naive. You aren't able to see things from another's point of view. It is not necessarily important to agree with another but it is important to understand their perspective. If you don't try you will not grow.

Ok, I'll go along with a difference of opinion. For me though I would never try to convey my feelings on choosing the lesser of two evils by saying it is something I want (or the synonyms: wish, desire, or like). I just can't get myself to say I wanted my colonoscopy.

You are remembering cosmic inflation. My understanding is that the mechanism for inflation is not well understood. Someone else may be able to supply details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

I know, but it implies the administration did something wrong, even though you did not claim they did. If conjecture has no impact, then you shouldn't mind me asking the question "What role did Rigney play in the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Mark's school on April 23rd of this year? Is Rigney hiding something? Why haven't we heard from him on this issue yet? Has he gone through a police lineup yet? Why hasn't he submitted to a lie detector test? Is this a first time thing? Has Rigney ever done this before?" Simply conjecture. No harm in me asking, right?

I was not poking fun. I was trying to show that in the absence of evidence, asking questions like that makes the questioner seem biased. My question about the Republicans is a valid as your question about the Obama administration. In other words, a misleading and biased question.

Do you think the Senate Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pack up and go home because the Democrats are in the majority? Since the Republicans are on the committee and are known to be looking for opportunities to make Obama look bad, my question is, was there information the Republicans might have know that could have prevented such an attack, but rather than acting on it the Republicans decided to let innocent Americans die, simply for political reasons?

Well, best of luck finding out 'why' space and time act as they do, but perhaps an explanation of 'how' the speed of light is observed to be independent of reference frame would be of interest if you are not already familiar with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

I'm happy to have anyone correct any errors I make here, but... I think the point Janus was trying to make was that a photon does not experience time. Since you cannot actually travel at c this is not an issue. I think the issue is that it is not really a cause and effect situation. Going faster does not actually change distance and time, it changes the way you measure distance and time. An object travelling at near c relative to us measures our clock to be slower than does an object travelling at a velocity of 0 relative to us. Our clock is not actually doing two different things simultaneously. It is just viewed differently depending on relative velocity. The realization that light travels at c to all observers led to the realization that time and distance must not be constant as was assumed. There is no reason 'why' this is so, it just is. No one can answer why gravity has the force it does either. But experiments have verified that time, space, and gravity act as they do.

The real question is, Was there information the Republicans knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

Let's look at some examples. Does the parent who tells the doctor to separate their conjoined twins, knowing one will die, do so because they want to? Does the person who has to choose which of the two drowning victims he'll save, do so because they want to? Did I tell the doctor I wanted him to stop treatment of my mother and instead ease her pain because I wanted to? Did I punish my children because I wanted to? Does a jury decide to be responsible for a man's death because they want to? Does a soldier send his men into certain death because he wants to? Does my brother still smoke after his heart attack because he wants to? You seem to be incredibly naive.

I really have no idea. Why do you think an unruly civilian mob and terrorists both sound like lies? What might be a more likely scenario for what happened?