Strange

You would need to be crushed to be billions of time smaller than an atom.

This implies nobody has simulated such things before and you are the first to notice these things. Many such simulations have been done and so it seems likely that your simulations, or you conclusions based on those simulations, are in error. Without more detail, no one can know why your are getting erroneous results. Just saying "run a random simulation" doesn't help.

Yeah, yeah. That doesn't change the fact that the section you highlighted ("If you ask scientists if they believe their theory is true, they'll often tell you "yes"") does NOT say what you claim ("your considered opinion is that science has a great deal to do with truth (see red highlights)"). And that this is typical of your argumentative style. But I will leave ydoaPs to explain that to you more clearly.

Kinda. It is a model of how the universe is expanding from a hot dense state. That is just speculation. We don't have theories that can go back to the "beginning" (if there was one). It is possible that the singularity is just a result of our theories not being applicable under those conditions. There are various attempts to add quantum theory to the model; many of these get rid of the singularity. And some of them show the universe to be infinitely old. In the classical version of the model, with a singularity, the concept of "before" is meaningless (someone else described this as like asking what is further north than the north pole). In other models, the universe existed in some form and something (unknown) started the expansion. Basically, the answer to your question is: no one knows. (Yet.) They are different in a number of ways. For example, a black hole singularity (which also may not be physical) exists in your future while the big bang singularity exists in your past. Also, the usual model of a black hole is based on the Schwarzschild metric which describes a static, spherical distribution of mass in an otherwise empty universe. The cosmological singularity is a result of the FLRW metric which describes the universe as being homogeneously filled with matter.

But no one says that only religion is violent, bigoted, fanatical or irrational. And it isn't just atheists who make such claims. I'm sure there are religious people who accuse football fans or politicians of those things. So, again, you are arbitrarily inventing standards that you expect all people who don't believe in a deity to adhere to. For no real reason. Atheists are just as likely as anyone else to be violent, bigoted, fanatical or irrational. Or not. It was kind of a joke (not a good one): the only beliefs you seemed to be ascribing to atheists were "dangerous ones". But many communists have been religious. So what? Do they? "The founder and primary theorist of Marxism, the nineteenth-century German thinker Karl Marx, had an ambivalent and complex attitude to religion,[1] viewing it primarily as "the soul of soulless conditions", the opium of the people" that had been useful to the ruling classes since it gave the working classes false hope for millennia. At the same time Marx saw religion as a form of protest by the working classes against their poor economic conditions and their alienation. [2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion And, of course, that is Marxism, not communism.

Of course not. Space-time can continue to exist, even if nothing changes along the time dimension. The idea that time is defined by change is bizarre but quite common. It seems to be based on the idea that we can use change to measure time.

But that isn't what the highlighted section says. I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what others say or simply enjoy twisting people's words just for the sake of creating an argument. You agree that his doctrine was about falsifying theories based on evidence and yet you deny that he considered evidence important. That is beyond bizarre. So it seems that you are just as willing to misrepresent Popper (and other philosophers and scientists) as you are the statements of people on this forum. Or perhaps you don't actually understand much of the great chunks you quote in lieu of making an argument; maybe you just search for a few keywords hoping to keep stirring the pot. The usual reason that people rapidly accumulate a large number of negative points is because of their attitude rather than simply being wrong, for example. The sort of things that attract negative votes are: being unable to make a rational argument; being incoherent or contradictory; using logical fallacies, such as misrepresenting what people say; refusing to acknowledge factual errors; being tediously arrogant; repeating the same argument even after it has been refuted; and so on. I'm sure none of these apply to you so I am also baffled as to the reason.

What is that "we" atheists preach? So atheists should preach dangerous ideas? Is it? There is nothing inherently atheist (not dangerous) about communism.

No you haven't. You said it was on an off-line computer. No you haven't. You said it was on an off-line computer. The whole basis of science is checking other people's results. As you won't provide any data or even your models, how can anyone check that you conclusions are reasonable? I am unable to see where you provide this. Nor where you show how it is calculated. Then you should not be afraid of providing the data you used. How can I when you refuse to provide any data.

OK. That's fine. Don't provide a link or anything. But why do you expect people to buy software to get information that you could provide for free? Then how are we expected to run it? (Assuming we are willing to pay for the privilege.) How can anyone address your hypothesis if you refuse to provide any basic quantitative results? I tracked down a reseller: 98 Euros. Send me the money and I will buy a copy.

The difference between guessing and calculation is the use of data. No one is nailing it down. But we have a lot of information about how and where stars form. We know how this is affected by the availability of gas and dust, and how the size and lifetime of stars are affected by the metallicity. Science is all about producing models that allow us to make predictions about what will happen. We don't need examples. We have data about what exists now and can use that to project what is likely to happen in the future. When walking down the road do you ever stop dead in panic because the pavement ahead might turn to soup? Or a giant anvil might fall on your head? Or the Sun will go out? No, you use your knowledge of the world to predict that things will carry on in a reasonable way. OK. All curiosity and scientific investigation is pointless. Got it.

What is "Interactive Physics"? Where are the simulations you refer to? Why can't you just provide the data?

I read a report regarding this a few years ago. I don't remember many of the details (and it was confidential anyway). But I think they reckoned that the limit for silicon transistors would be reached in 10 years or less. We are already seeing various scaling problems. For example, power density is the reason that clock speeds of PCs stopped increasing a decade or so ago. There are problems with with leakage current, supply voltages approaching threshold voltages, switching speeds, etc. But the thing about Moore's Law (apart from the fact it is just an historical observation) is that it is about number of transistors on a device. This has been achieved in two ways: smaller transistors but also larger die. In the future, designs will move to 3D (stacked) technology to keep increasing the number of devices. This also has the benefit of allowing much greater bandwidth to memory (lookup the hybrid memory cube, for example). At the same time, people are looking at alternative materials to replace silicon.

Effectively, yes. Estimates like this are made based on observations of the number/density of stars, the rates at when they form, the rates at which they die, the number of planets per star, models for planetary formation given the amount of gas and different levels of metallicity, and so on. These factors can be observed now (locally) and in the past (at a distance) and from that one can model what is happening now and what might happen in the future. But that isn't what they say. They are saying that we are currently 8th out of 10. In the future, when there are 10 times (or more) as many planets as now, we (and the others) will be the first ten out of 100. And yet the paper is full of calculations supporting their argument. (I have no opinion on how valid their numbers or calculations are, but you can't deny their existence.)

It doesn't say we are the first. We are among the first (in your example, we are no. 8 in the first 10). So what. This is not about when (or if) we hear from these advanced civilizations but about the number that might exist now, and the number that might exist in the future. The rest of the universe is currently present. You seem to back to a confusion between when you detect something and when it exists. If you get a postcard from someone on holiday, do you assume they are still in the same place as when they sent it? Even if they came back a few days ago and are standing next to you admiring the card, you assume they must still be in Baja because that is what the card says?

Your link doesn't work. Perhaps you could provide a link to this 1999 study? You can safely ignore whatever Freud said: he just made stuff up. It isn't science. There is this: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2012-02599-001 The abstract implies that parental influence is important (not surprisingly).

I don't see the inconsistency. They estimate that we are in the last 20% of planets formed so far. But eventually, all the current planets will be in the first 10% of planets formed. We can, obviously, only extrapolate from what we see. But it is a working assumption that the universe is roughly the same everywhere (because there is nothing to suggest it isn't) so we can, with some confidence, extrapolate beyond what we see. In my experience, that is a problem with journalism rather than science. I would be surprised if that was actually made as a statement of fact. But on the other hand, scientists are human and that may be what he believes. It is just as reasonable as believing it finite. Because of the amount of material available for creating new stars and planets. The fact that there may be no one around to observe it (and if there were, they would not observe it for a very long time) doesn't mean you can't (in principle) calculate when it will happen. By the way, if you want to look at the paper, it is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01202(the link in the article is broken). Nowhere do they say anything about the universe being finite or infinite. They also do consider the increasing separation of galaxies:

There is a convention that t=0 at the "start" of the big bang. However, there are several models where there is no start (see the current thread about "no big bang", for example).

No more than any other scientists presenting their work. I don't see the relevance of any of those "objections". My understanding is that they are simply using Bohmian trajectories as an easier way of trying to calculate the quantum effects in the early universe. They are not claiming there are hidden variables, just using it as a useful approximation. Similar techniques are often used to try and approximate a theory of quantum gravity. For example, Hawking had to use (other) simplifications in order to derive the equations for Hawking radiation. p.s. I'm sure this work has been discussed before but I can't find the thread now. This paper gives some good context for the misleading (or basically grossly dishonest/ignorant) headlines: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-big-bangs-1493194f5cd9#.2pk1j4l9a "In fact, as far as the question of where space and time come from goes, there is still plenty of debate on all sides, and this recent paper that came out is simply another drop in the ocean of that debate: nothing more." Another good commentary on this paper here: https://plus.google.com/+BrianKoberlein/posts/3wW3fNH7GMV

I'm really not sure what you are saying (or asking). The paper suggests that 80% of Earth-like planets formed before the Earth. But also that there is enough material around for star and planet formation to continue such that over 10 times more planets are likely to be created in future. It is a statistical argument based on the amount of material available, the rate at which stars and planets are thought to form, etc.

I'm sure that is true of some people. But (because atheism isn't a religion) there is no one reason why people don't believe in God. For me, and many others, the concept is just pointless and irrelevant. Like golf. It is barely even an absence of belief; just complete indifference. So can golf. Or mathematics. <shrug> I am as cool about it as I am about stamp collecting or spelunking. But I don't see where rationality comes into it. Should I also "rationally" consider the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

I would say shame on you for putting words in their mouths instead of finding out what they mean. Then why is Airbrush doing exactly that? And then pretending to be outraged. Pathetic.

You could use the keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl-C to copy, Ctrl-V to paste).

This is what I am waiting for you to explain (on the assumption that this is the same as a "natural" right). I could understand if you said they were God-given rights, because then you could point to a Book and say, "look, here". As it is, "they come from nature" is meaningless. So does polyester.