Danny,
No, I would really like to start a separate thread on the topic Big Bang Theory, and after that start another new thread on Relativity. I know there is some overlap between the two, and that's OK if it occurs in the discussions on either thread.
It's just that these are both rather large topics, with much to explore, and I think that separate threads will contribute to bringing the topics into sharper focus. At least that's my theory. The validity of this assumption or otherwise will manifest as the discussions unfold.
In addition, I'm sure most of us have started threads and experienced the kind of time and attention that this requires. It's a lot of work and follow-up (unless they're the light and fluffy ones, which are fun and have their place too). So this is just another strategy I am hoping will keep things down to manageable proportions.
My instincts tell me that the topics we are getting into are going to be very challenging and extensive. Countless books have been written on the Big Bang and Relativity, These subjects are quite complex and involved. A lot of the math is absolutely mind-numbing. There may be a few of you that want to spend a little time in the math area. But this can also be quite intimidating, even boring for most folks. Therefore, I would hope we could keep much of the discussion as reader-friendly as possible.
I am actually quite shocked how this particular thread has turned into the amount of commentary and back and forth dialogue that has been generated. I'm thrilled with the apparent interest, but surprised at the voluminous contributions from so many responders. I initally thought it was going to pop in and pop out on this forum, and then die an early death. This has convinced me all the more that there should be separate threads for the next topics.
Tetra,
I really appreciated your interesting post on Carl Sagan. He is one of my favorite scientists. I watched all of his Cosmos series twice, and he had me hooked and mesmerized. I have the tape on the soundtrack from the Cosmos series, and that was another thing that blew me away. I was struck with the impression that he was the type of person who was a fair and decent human being, and not at all haughty. One of his most admirable qualities was his ability to take vast complexities, reduce them down, and then present them in a clear and comprehensible manner. He was also an excellent writer, who wrote with precision and clarity. I was quite saddened when he passed away. (Another guy that really intrigues me is Stephen Jay Gould, but that's another story).
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]
A good observation. However, I wonder if Carl Sagan would have drawn that comparison had he met all the members on the JWD forum. Aren't most of us here examples of people who went thru the process of "changing our minds" in terms of religion, despite the pain we all experienced as a result?
Rod P.
