Slashdot Mirror
Universe Shaped Like A Soccer Ball?
Rabid Rob writes "According to a New Scientist article, and prompted by data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), it's suggested the universe could be shaped like a soccer ball - the 'cosmic microwave background' has fluctuations, and a possible conclusion is that 'our Universe seems like an endlessly repeating set of dodecahedrons.' Oh yeah, the universe is only 70 billion light years across, so better buy up the real estate now while it's still cheap!" The NYT has more information (free reg. req.) on this theory, which is quickly being refuted by Wernstrom-like rival researchers.
When will the US finally realise and stop playing all those other silly sports with Joan Collins style shoulder pads
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Actually a soccer ball is not a dodecahedron.
. html
It is a mix of Hexagonal and Penatagonal shapes, more commonly seen as a C60 (carbon60) or Bucky-Ball.
Example here http://www.udel.edu/fth/java/MoleculeViewer/bucky
--- This meme is memory intensive
What's on the outside of the universe?
... If I go there, will I escape Governor Conan and reality TV?
Science is no different from any other belief system!
If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
I was always taught that it was shaped like a basketball. This changes everything!
C'mon guys, why would you be so specific about something so generic?
Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
Oh yeah, the universe is only 70 billion light years across, so better buy up the real estate now while it's still cheap!"
I call Andromeda!
It's all pretty irrelevant in the here and now.
Let's try to think about how we can help our fellow man by lending a hand.
It's wonderful to have the luxury to sit idly and contemplate the universe in all its glory. It's sublime to reach down into the gutters and pull those huddled, wretched masses yearning to breathe free into the full brotherhood of Man.
A great man once said, "Take care of yourself AND each other" No greater admonition exists.
http://tubes.ominix.com/art/a/rec/soccer-ball.png
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
"The universe is FLAT I tell you!"
...what's on the other side? Why isn't that part of the Universe?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
A week ago it was shaped like a donut (or is that a Torus).
Mmm, universal donut.
No-one is ever going to solve the problem of an infinite Universe, because it would involve the proof of travelling to the end of it (or not), something I doubt will ever happen before the end of the human race!
In Soviet Russia, YOU play GOD!
At first I was confused that they kept saying 'finite and small,' I mean, seriously, if you think 70 billion light years is small, what-are-you-smoking-and-can-I-have-some?
But towards the end they mention something about small-Universe and large-Universe models, and imply that the two are scientifically meaningful terms.
Anyone out there got a clue?
Conor
Programmer, Consultant, Geek, CTYer.
Soccer! Honey! Get me some beer!
That's football, for our English readers ;)
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
But after that i thought, the rest of the universe probably calls it football too.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Not only is it not just a matter of life and death, but football is an integral part of the universe...
So now I know what that cop at the beginning of Run Lola Run was talking about!
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
In my country (the Netherlands) most people think that the world revolves around football (that is soccer). So let's all keep this quiet, and not let all those soccer fans know that in reality the whole universe now seems to revolve around, and is shaped like, a football...
Whats the technical definition of a universe? Does it include the voids? If so, how does "nothing" expand? How can you describe the shape of nothing?
What does that make Pele?
Or Buckminster Fuller?
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Sure, you make jokes now, but just wait till your kids are asking you why they have to go to school in the slums of the universe.
On a serious note, creationist research Russel Humphreys proposed a model of space that was in line with the creationist model of a young earth. For years creationists acknowledged that astrophysics was the weakest part of our research (sure, I know all the hundreds of replies I'll get about weaknesses in other areas - trust me, I've heard them before). His model was based on two assumptions that were different from our current ones:
1. That the universe began from a theoretical white hole, not a black hole
2. That the universe is finite in size.
By changing these two assumptions about our universe and it's origins resulted in a young earth and an old universe.
Surprisingly, the main criticisms for this model come from old earth creationists, and not others.
For those who haven't read it, I highly recommend checking it out here.
From the New Scientist article
I wonder how that sentence should be interpreted...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3175352.stm Just in case anyone cares!
/me can see the arguments over whether the universe is shaped like a soccer ball or a football already....
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
How well could Roberto Carlos curve it?
Considering his latest effort is a viagra informercial...I'd say not a lot!
This is something that continually perplexes me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Every time I hear or read about space from news stories or published papers, it's always as though they're talking/writing about a thing, as though space had a physical presence.
My understanding of space is that it's a big zero, empty, nothing, spotted with clusters of various materials that are in the form of gases or solids.
There is no physical boundary to our solar system, we just made one up in our heads to differentiate between "in here" and "out there".
There's no fence at the outer "edge" of our galaxy which says "last plasma matter/anti-matter fuel stop for 1000 ly, 0.5 ly on your left".
It's just a big empty. Nothing. There's no "flat plain" of space. There's nothing stopping you from flying perpendicular to the orbits of our planets and taking a long distance picture.
Blackhole's do _not_ lead down a funnel. They reduce to a singularity, a point in space where upon one element may occupy the same space - and presumably time as well - as another element. It's a freaking dot that weighs an infinite amount, not a vacuum cleaner.
Maybe it's because I haven't studied astrophysics or advanced quantum theory, but it just seems to me that a lot of the time when a scientist says the universe is shaped like a soccer ball, or a donut, or a freaking celtic knot, he really has no idea.
It's space, nothing, a huge empty. If it's shaped like anything than what the hell is outside?
Zero Kelvin.
yes...mmyes mummble mummble..
yes.. according to my theory, the universe is a footbal and is part of an ever bigger soccer field. From there on it becomes a fractal, e.a. the universe there is just another football in another soccer field. The same applies to the basketball. I do not have the balls to investigate my own however.
Was the world made by 9 year olds in Pakistan for 50p a day?
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Oh, and the part where they are measuring the background radiation and determining that the vibration patterns don't coinside with an infinite universe? Rubbish! Even though space is infinet, the matter and energy are obviously not as plentiful, so don't confuse matter/energy with space.
Space by itself has some amazing properties even without matter/energy, but unfortunately you have to use matter and energy to observe/measure it.
--
No matter how attractive you think she is, some guy out there is long since tired of putting up with her crap.
What is on the 'outside' ??
'scuse me, I'm english.
..as opposed to them funny shaped balls the americans use for 'football' (if i wasn't so ignorant, I'd call them rubgy balls)
'Like a soccer ball' - kinda spherical??
I'm already an insignificant spec in an infinite universe. Now I've been reduced to an insiginificant spec in a finite universe. I need a nap it's too early for this kind of depressing news.
Here is an interesting animation of Poincare Dodecahedral Space, also known as S3#.
it feels weird to think about your answer. If I understand it correct you are suggesting that only on the inside the rules of physics apply but not on the outside. Since Im human I cannot grab the idea although it feels right. Whenever I think:"Yup, got it" my thoughts spin back to zero and I have to start over again. Argh! Stop it! No, really, NOW! Aiik!
right here
So if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and the universe is supposed to be 7-15 billion years old (depending on who you ask), how ca n it be 70 billion light years across? Hmmm. Answer me that one scientist.
on a serious note, creationist research...
Oh dear.
It obviously has a great sense of humor and a true love for football.
The other virtue gave us a football shaped universe and the other gave us David Beckham.
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
As mentioned earlier, most Footballs are 32 faced solids mixing hexagons and pentagons:
o n. html
t ml
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TruncatedIcosahedr
http://www.mathconsult.ch/showroom/unipoly/25.h
what is "ERP"?
h ere: http://www.tattva-viveka.de/tattva/htm/Wagner.htm g -archive/lectur e.html
go here: http://www.e-r-g.de/mysteria/x/x1186.htm
-and-
-and-
here:
http://www.rainerlinz.net/rosenber
I think one of the first models of the universe was A BALL with the eart in the centre, moon and sun revolving arround the earth while the planets had strange trajectories inside the ball. On the interior walls of the ball the stars were painted. This model was easily accepted by the cristian church because there was room left for god, heaven and hell outside the ball. And I thought we progressed a lot in the mean time. STUPID ME!
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
Two atoms moving in exactly opossite directions at the speed of light from the big bang would today be 30 billion years appart (if we take your second guess).
I will leave it to professional astronomers/cosmologists to mercilessly point my ignorance or clarify this....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Big Bang It Like Beckham
Am I being short-sighted here, or is this information really pointless?
In the long-run, I suppose we MIGHT gain some insight into wierd physics that we MIGHT be able to use once we get out of our own solar system.
But seriously, is there a real use for this that we could put to practical use within 20 years?
Since it is the universe itself expanding, the distance between objects can increase faster than the speed of light without the objects themselves moving at all.
More here
No wonder I always feel like I'm getting the shit kicked out of me.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The parent is way off topic.
Also, christian fundamentalists are damaging to our society. Please don't mod them up.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Hey, wait a minute! I saw an article yesterday at Ananova in the UK that said the universe is football-shaped.
Well? Which is it? Hunh?
And all the world is football shaped,
It's just for me to kick in space
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Sweet finally, screw light speed. I'll move my ships 1d6 hexigons per turn.
This is interesting. two thousand four hundred years ago, in the dialogue named the timeaus, plato created a similiar conclusion on the shape of the universe, using premises which it seems no one would accept as truth (today that is).
So I guess I know what programs David Spergel will be running on the beowulf I just finished (92 nodes, 2.2-3.06GHz).
:>
It's always fun to see your place of work (or colleagues) mentioned on Slashdot, and not because of bankruptcy or failing stocks
Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah!
Radio, radio, rah rah rah!
My understanding of space is that it's a big zero, empty, nothing, spotted with clusters of various materials that are in the form of gases or solids.
the universe ends when there ceases to be matter. At least that's how I always thought of it. The definition is a little shakey for statistical reasons. have you ever taken a stats class(no offense intended, honest question)? if I remember correctly, there's some sort of limit or something... if you were to use particle distribution from the "center" of the universe out, you could probably make a rough guess at the 99.5% line or something to that effect. obviously we can't take inventory of every sub-atomic particle, so scientists guess. At least, that's what I'd do I suppose.
There is no physical boundary to our solar system, we just made one up in our heads to differentiate between "in here" and "out there".
again, it's not so much about physical lines as it is about theoretical lines. With our solar system, I guess I'd use the oort cloud as a limit.
if all else failed, I suppose I'd define it as the farthest-out orbiting object.
It's just a big empty. Nothing. There's no "flat plain" of space. There's nothing stopping you from flying perpendicular to the orbits of our planets and taking a long distance picture.
a "flat plain of space" is referring to gravitational(and time?) distortions. gravity wells are a great example of this. it shows gravity become stronger as it gets closer to the object. You are correct about the perpendicular movement tho... SOmething you *do* have to consider is that more or less, everything in the solar system follows the same plain... a lot of systems are like that. the milky way is like that as well.
Blackhole's do _not_ lead down a funnel.
This I'd argue, is a matter of perspective. obviously there IS no funnel, you are correct, however, if you were getting sucked down one, in those brief moments before you die, it might look or feel like you're getting sucked down a funnel. Think with your eyes, not your brain. the photons around you aren't going to becoming at you from all angles- only from above. the the sides, nothingness, below you, death. you get pulled towards death while looking up, the remaining photons hitting you from all angles lessening, making it appear that the"opening" above you is getting smaller. I wish I could describe this sensation better with words, but I can't.
They reduce to a singularity, a point in space where upon one element may occupy the same space - and presumably time as well - as another element. It's a freaking dot that weighs an infinite amount, not a vacuum cleaner.
And what would be the difference? think of it as a vacuum cleaner with a spherical mouth and a really good trash compactor built in. whatever floats your boat to understand that the gravity is very strong, and pulls stuff in.
Maybe it's because I haven't studied astrophysics or advanced quantum theory, but it just seems to me that a lot of the time when a scientist says the universe is shaped like a soccer ball, or a donut, or a freaking celtic knot, he really has no idea.
it requires a very spacial mind(no pun intended) to see things like this. play with this for a while. I remember a friend of mine telling me about a book or something where a circle meets a sphere, and tries to describe to a 2d object what a 3d world is like...adventures in flatland perhaps? it's sorta like that...
It's space, nothing, a huge empty. If it's shaped like anything than what the hell is outside?
This really depends on if *all matter* came from one singularity or multiple.... for all we know, the universe could be part of a larger megaverse where no two universes are close enough to even detect each other. wouldn't that be a trip?
signed,
-IANAAP(I am not an astro-physicist)
morgajel.
p.s. yes I hate capital letters.
p.p.s. and I can't spell either.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
"According to a New Scientist article, and prompted by data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), it's suggested the universe could be shaped like a soccer ball" What -- Round?? Yeah... I'd say that's a pretty good bet :P
If I go around claiming that Santa exists and that I impregnated alien hotties from Venus, I'd probably also get laughed at and I'd certainly have some trouble finding anyone to have a serious discussion with me. I'm sorry is this sounds a bit harsh, consider it honest feedback and my own personal opinion, etc.
If you're interested in a discussion, how about we talk about why The Bible depicts God as a cowardly Saddam-type figure who kills kids:
Kids executed by God over a minor offense
Kids being slaughtered for the behaviour of their non-democratically elected leader
Let us also not forget that God is anti-democratic, encourages murder for 'moral' reasons, considers women inferior, etc, etc according to The Bible. Please excuse me while I find a less violent way of thinking about the universe, life and everything.
Yes, you may brand this as "shouting" or "being attacked". It's a classical "I'm always the victim so I won't waste my time defending my true claims" type fallacy. Don't bother, because it's totally obvious.
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
Except you don't see your opposite in cowboy hats waving back at you, just yourself.
On the plus side I was always afraid my wife would run off with my bizzaro opposite. He being the smart sexy one.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
outwards shapes into a dodecahedron?
anything non-spherical suggests it's more than our view?
A blog I run for the wealth
Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe by Charles Seife. Seife is a mathematician turned writer and science journalist. It was published just a couple months ago, and describes the third revolution in cosmology currently underway.
I kept seeing articles on dark energy and the fact that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, so I bought this book to get back in touch. Easily one of the clearest explanations of current cosmology. I now understand the standard model of matter about as well as any layman can ever hope to.
--- Ban humanity.
Somehow that seems appropriate.
Perhaps more interesting than the conjectures about the universe shape is the overall correlation of the WMAP data with the predictions of inflation. Gotta think there's a Nobel soon for Guth (and Linde, Steinhardt).
When you say that it's a classical "I'm always the victim so I won't waste my time defending my true claims" type fallacy, that itself is a straw man fallacy - he never said he wouldn't defend his claims, in fact, he's said repeatedly that he will defend them in a more civil way, through email
You also seem to understand the fallacy of changing the subject (how about we talk about why...), and using a chewbacca style defense (implying that he's rediculous because of some nonesense that came out of nowhere about alien hotties and santa)
I don't know how hard that is to understand, but ironically, your post had me laughing
Cig? No, thank you.
Just a little plug - over at sciscoop we had this up last night.
Energy: time to change the picture.
"There are two things that are infinite : the Universe and human stupidity. Though I'm not too sure about the Universe."
;-)
Sounds like he had the right idea.
12-sided ones to be exact.
Did no one else think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy parallels with the game of cricket?
--
$tar -xvf
Think again in 11th dimension!
:)
According to M-Theory, the universe, and everything, is a just big bubble(Membrane).
The speed of light is constant. Most of physics is grounded in this assumption. Most of the equations that physics uses to describe the macro and micro universes rely on that assumption. If the assumption is broken, a lot of work needs to be done to fix physics broken infrastructure.
When light "wraps" around the universe it has traversed the entire distance from one side to the other in an very tiny slice of time. Indeed, 70 Billion light years in a tiny amount of time will break physics cardinal rule of "the speed of light is constant", since our usual value for the speed of light is much smaller.
Now lets get into the more difficult question: how is light instantly transmitted from one side of the universe to the other? "Wrap around" is poetic (may as well say the hand of God moves it), lets talk physics here.
How about a tougher problem? What happens when matter goes over this threshold? What happens to you when one half of you is on one side of the universe, and the other half is on the far side?
The light doesn't travel any distance when "wrapping" around. The universe is curved so that is why you have this wrap around effect, you shouldn't really take that picture as a guide :) It looks weird I know, but in physics/equations it makes sense. That straight "travel" line is not really a straigth line, it is also curved.
Dear Anonymous Coward, thank you for biting ;-) Although it might not appear so at first glance, your post is in effect in support of mine. As an added bonus, both you and I experienced a positive sensation (laughing).
;-) Do you understand the mechanism now? You demonstrated EXACTLY the mechanism I was describing in my post by doing it yourself.
;-))
As I explained to the guy, in the *perception* of those by whom he felt attacked, he was bringing forward an opinion which they felt was "nonsense that came out of nowhere" as you but it. In his view, his opinion is 100% correct, so I had to give an extreme example that most parties (including you) would agree is absurd. This caught your attention to the point that you practically quoted me on it.
You also took the effort of pointing out my own fallacies, without actually discussing those two links at all. Pointing out other people's fallacies, i.e. "you do it too" is a fallacy in itself
You are wrong about the 'straw man' fallacy thing though. I was of course referring tho lines like "I'm not unwilling to discuss apparent weaknesses - just not on slashdot. I have boundaries, and I don't have an infinite amount of time to waste." -- he made ample mention in almost every one of his posts that he was not willing to defend his point of view in the forum where he posted it in the first place. If you don't want replies in place X, then don't mention it in place X. Simple as that. Except, of course, to someone who indirectly condones child abuse (oops, there's the straw man
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
Can someone correct me ... but I thought the universe was suppose to be shaped like a piece of paper that was slightly planed (into a U shape) - this was to lead to a possible way to time travel - by bending that space even further. But, if the universe is a dodechahedron - how would one compress or change the shape of such a mass??
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
When asked why God had chosen to create the universe in such a specific shape, he simply replied:
"Go-go-go-GOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLL!"
UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
Now that, according to the research mentioned in the article, the universe actually seems to have this shape, this strikes me as an interesting coincidence. (I don't know whether the Greeks themselves actually thought the cosmos was dodecahedron-shaped, though.)
Jesus saves... passes to Moses... He shoots, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!
-- 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:
From NewScientist:
"If we resolved this and confirmed that space is finite, this would be an enormous step forward in our understanding of nature." -- mathematician Jeffrey Weeks from Canton, New York
i thought that most of our quantum theories hinged on the idea that the universe was infinite, and the multiple universes can and do interact.
if the universe is finite, and multiple universes can't interact, then string theory and gravity being a 4+ dimensional force (accounting for its perceived weakness compared to nuclear and electromagnetic forces) are pretty much out the window.
and in my opinion that's a pretty huge step -backwards- for our understanding, since quite a bit of research has been done with those theories as a foundation.
not to mention, if the universe is a finite, closed system, then entropy will slowly fill it entirely and definitively end it. (at least with regards to us)
sure, in the long run if this holds up it'd be a positive step for understanding - any discovery would be. but the immediate effect and implications would be profoundly negative.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"I call it a Hawking ball." - Steven Hawking
;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Deductive logic takes general principles (which can be arbitrary but are usually assumed for some purpose) and from those, using the rules of deductive logic, more, subsidary principles arise; contrariwise, inductive logic lakes many observations and from those particulars, the general principle governing them is induced. This means that a deductively valid argument cannot go from true assumptions to false conclusions (which is simply not the case for an inductively valid argument). Thus if science used deductive logic, we would never need to revise our scientific theories. In other words, fundamentalism actually uses deductive research and empirical science uses inductive research, so from a purely logical point of view, a fundamentalist whose arguments were deductively valid would be better than any scientists' argument. If you don't like your own example of fundamentalism, mathematics is also a deductive field.
The above flamebait and then this offtopic.
refuted by Wernstrom-like rival researchers
I give this article the worst grade imaginable... an A minus... minus!
The measurements of very low coefficients in the angular power spectrum is very difficult since we unfortunately only have one universe. At larger values you can compare measurements in different reagons of the sky, but for the lower coefficients you need large angles and thus only very few if not only a single (statistically independent) measurement is possible. They probably get the statistic right, but it's very hard to study systematic effects and assign correct systematic uncertainties.
We will need more experiments with independent systematics before this will actually get acepted
Cheers
KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing
The universe is really shaped like a genuine Red Ryder 200-shot Combine Action Air Rifle.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Here is a very simple question I've often wondered about. I am no astronomy buff by any means, so forgive me if it sounds stupid. If the universe is only a certain distance across or limited in size, then what lies beyond that distance? Is the universe infinite, or does it have a beginning and an end? What theories exist to support or deny these conclusions?
Oh, sorry. Did that hurt?
Since scientist can not decide on the shape of the universe i have decided to conduct a survey:l indrical
what shape do you think the universe is:
-donut(torus)
-sphere(or aproximation thereof including what this theory states)
-mouse (or other small rodent)
-mobius strip
-piramid
-cubic
-random
-unlimited
-cy
-other____________________(please specify)
return results to smeier@psd.k12.co.us
Apologies for the above post. Slashdot interpreted a "less than" sign as the starting bracket of HTML even in "Plain Old Text" mode. Here it is without the missing text:
) Whats the technical definition of a universe?
Everything.
) Does it include the voids?
Does everything include nothing? You could argue about the double negatives that a "no" answer would lead to, and "yes" wouldn't make much more practical sense. It's sort of like asking if infinity is less than infinity plus 0.
) If so, how does "nothing" expand? How can you describe the shape of nothing?
If it's too much trouble to think of an ever expanding universe, try thinking about an ever shrinking one. You keep the same physical space, but every object in it just keeps shrinking forever. That doesn't help you with your "outside" problem, though.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Also, please explain the nearly human remains that have been found. They're more human than ape, yet not quite human, and they're 100 thousand + years old.
Then there's dinosaur remains from hundreds of millions of years ago...
Did God put all that there as a test of our "faith?"
Sorry to be an asshole, but you are indeed deluded.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The universe is built from D12s! Yes! I knew that god was favoring my minotaur great axe for all these years!
$1000 if you prove me wrong.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
there doesn't seem to be an experiment that could ;-)
be used as an _example_ for the theory. As in "look,
we did it, another point for the theory". Just
drop the rock onle once, and see it fall, that's what he wants. And rightly so
So, space which is nothing, is expanding?!? How can nothing expand?
I believe the universe is an atom made up of smaller planets and suns and stuff which are made up of smaller atoms and all which are made up of quarks and so on and smaller and if you go backwards like the universe is really just part of another atom which is part of another molecule and so on. Anyone ever see the superfriends episode I about the microuniverse?
But the dimensions remain the same!
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dodecahedron.html
I thought the pictures were cool!
...tizzyd
You are absolutely right: At first it seems like a contradiction that the universe should be 14 billion years old, but 70 billion light years accross, with the speed of light being constant. You would not expect an expansion beyond 28 billion light years. But please do consider the Inflation Theory which states the the universe went through a phase of rapid geometric expansion, and which had made a lot of predictions which were later found in WMAP data: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101inflation.ht ml
"OK, let's see here...yeah, put it on the pass line."
...
"Seven! yes!"
"Seven again! Woo hoo!"
"Seven!! Man I am smokin'!"
much, much later...
"seven. again. woo friggin hoo"
"Another damn seven. Jesus!"
"Yes?"
"Sorry, kid, just an expression."
"seven."
"seven."
"seven."
"seven."
Because there are human statements that go back that far.
While it is certainly concievable that the Almighty created existance only very recently, nearly all statements about how we came to be state that we have been around for a good deal of time.
So what you're saying is that because most well-established creation myths say people were around at least 6K years ago, that means they were? Of course, these creations myths are more likely to be true because they've been around so long. This is funny too because you're working off the idea that if a lot of people say something, it's true.
What silly guff. All of this is like arguing over whether I am, in fact, just a brain in a jar being fed "memories" and "experiences" as part of some imaginative kids science fair project. Why waste your time?
Don't you ever think about when your "Almighty" was invented? I'm sure you learned about the rise of monotheism. Did you learn about Zeus and Hera and the rest of the gang? Was Mr. Almighty up there on Mount Olympus, too? Or maybe he was too busy burying dinosaur bones in the backyard at the time?
Paf. Apologies for rudeness, but I get so tired of people who think they know the answers. We know nothing. "Human statements" are massively unreliable, ESPECIALLY when they are only propagated by word of mouth over hundreds of generations.
I'm not even saying your wrong. I'm just saying that when you look at it logically, almost all organized religious views are... improbable.
There's no "space" in between things, like an invisible ruler defining where you are. It's the juxtaposition of mass that defines the space between it. So there is nothing outside the universe, because there's nothing out there to be next to. And, as it turns out, things that are "close" in a euclidean sense far away in one direction, could be close to things in a completely different direction if you travel far enough. How these straight lines loop back on themselves describes the shape of the universe.
I haven't studied the theory enough in a while, but as I recall, it's actually the curvature of space time due to gravity that actually causes these loopbacks. You can imagine firing a photon in one direction, and it's path is curved by all the existing relationships, and maybe if you trace it's path with a finger, it looks like it's curving around, but to the photon it was a straight shot.
These effects are inescapable, and in a sense, it sort of puts a absolutely outer boundary on the distance between any two objects in the Universe, no matter how hard you try to "get away".
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
The universe does have a wrap-around screen. Who would have thunk it?
Think about what would happen if a spherical shell of matter kept expanding from the center of the dodecahedron, It would sort of run into itself once it re-entered the dodecahedron from the other direction, but the matter wouldnt' all arrive at the same time, since face to face distance is longer that edge to edge distance. A big bang might lead to repeated expansions and contractions, eventually mixing up into a steady state of radial or more random non-radial motion.
These sort of ideas lead to some neat ideas about expansion/contraction of the universe. This story brightened my dreary work day.
dude you need to get laid
my ex wife's butt. Or at least modeled after it. They're pretty much the same size and take about the same amount of time to traverse...
I finally get it! So, the Universe is like a game of Pacman. When you go out one side of the board you come in through the other side! It all makes sense now.
a D20!
...so better buy up the real estate now while it's still cheap!
With the knowledge the universe is expanding, you'd probably regret buying "Real Estate" just to see it become a smaller and smaller percentage of whats out there...
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
... is how we know the world to Banana shaped!
The power of Christ compiles you!
Sound moves through air at 340m/s, but you can move air inside a jetplane at much higher speeds.
The same thing could apply to the universe as well
I am afraid that you are applying Gallilean Relativity in the sound example - where you simply add together velocities. You cannot do this in Special/General relativity, because time is not the same parameter in every reference frame.
Specifically, I am pretty sure that even with the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations of gravity, a light ray still has a null momentum vector (speed of light).
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
Is there a map of the universe showing our position relative to the soccer ball and significant galaxies? Some day we'll know the location of every object that exists.
Jeff Weeks is the person behind this and is a fairly well-known student of Bill Thurston (UC Davis).
From what I can gather from this article, he says there is evidence that the space part of space-time is a compact hyperbolic 3-manifold. Which is exactly what you would want space to be if you were a student of Thurston.
Also, Weeks is famous for his computer programs:
http://www.geometrygames.org/
The Dymaxion Ideal among other references.
The universe is a pancake.
Regards,
Kilgore Trout
It seems to me that black holes could explain this away. If there are enough black holes out there, they could be intercepting and sucking in enough stray light / radiation to prevent the sky from lighting up. Light could wrap around the universe a few times until it hit a black hole, then that would be the last you saw of it.
Quoting mathpages: The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron. He says simply "God used this solid for the whole universe, embriodering figures on it".
Does this mean reality is realy just a game of Hunt the Wumpus?
A friend who was tripping on LSD said that when looking up at the sky, he noticed how space itself seemed to be made up of pentagon shapes- pentagons beyond pentagons in a sort of endless fractal pattern. Not squares or hexagons- pentagons.
Perhaps the observer is influencing the experiement.
If this is true, should we be able to find our own sun and planet from the next pane in "endless mirror" and see into our own past?
And so on and so on in different millions-of-years increments?
If the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, and each side was moving at the speed of light, then wouldn't the universe be only 27.4 billion light years across?
... Poop. Even Superman can't hold it.
whereas a dodecahedron is composed of 12 pentagonal faces, a soccer ball is composed of pentagons and hexagons, and is not a perfect -hedron. A buckyball (C60)is the same as a soccer ball and C70 is similar to a rugby ball.
Would the circles be expected to match though? It would seem to me that the "view" of the "circle" might be travelling two different distances to the observer. If the "circle" is changing shape/location over time, you might be seeing two different looking incarnations of the same bit of background radiation ripple.
But, I'm an amateur and they ar eprofessionals, so surely they accounted for this.
This argument has the form
There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.
This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.
Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.
A more recent example is the argument by some Creationists that complex molecules (such as amino acids) could not have arisen by natural processes on the early earth. Hence, life could not have arisen by natural means, and God must have miraculously created these chemicals while creating life. The chemicals were part of a Purpose.
The basis of this argument was a gap in scientific knowledge. This basis fell apart when molecules (including organic molecules) were detected in interstellar space by astronomers. The argument came further apart when amino acids were found inside the Murchison meteorite. Apparently the basic molecules of life form naturally in some quite harsh places, and there is a way for vast quantities to have arrived intact on the early earth. So, their existence has Purpose only to the extent that the entire galaxy does.
Taken from here.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Weeks says that's just an invention of the press. He had the proper name up on a slide, but it's not even a dodecahedron. You can't tile space with dodecahedrons. You have to bend space to make them fit. You get a bending of space that amounts of a factor of 1.01. The microwave data gives a factor of 1.02 plus or minus .002, so it's not clearly confirmation or rejection.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
So in a sense he has discovered something a bit like a streetlight. If you've lost something small in a dark street then the best place to look is under the streetlight because at least then you might see it. Where there's no lighting there's no point looking because even if it's there you won't see it. Unfortunately the press seems to have interpreted the discovery of the streetlight as a statement of the form "I have found what I'm looking for and it's under the streelight". No, he's really just saying that if it is under the streetlight we'd better look there.
But I could be wrong as I haven't read his latest work.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Did God put all that there as a test of our "faith?"
My view of the matter, as an athiest with an ironic bent, is that if god went to that much trouble to convince us the earth was millions or billions of years old, i for one think we ought to play along with the idea rather than trying to spoil whatever effect god was intending to produce with all that work :)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I'm glad you admitted that it's only your perception that they're nonsense, fortunately rational discussion involves a little bit more than simply "I perceive that it's nonsense, therefore it is" - maybe you could come up with a good, rational refutation of his claims?
... is a fallacy in itself ;-)" - you seem to have just made that up out of nowhere, but if it's true (which it's not), it invalidates your own posts, along with the ability for anyone anywhere to point out that someone is wrong
You're wrong about me not discussing those links, I discussed those as "changing the subject"
"Pointing out other people's fallacies
I was right about the straw man though, you are portraying him as someone that won't discuss it, while quoting him yourself as someone willing to discuss it - he just had the foresight to see that attempting to disucuss it here beyond his initial opinion would be nearly impossible
The claim that the discussion has to take place where his views are stated is arbitrary at best, and does not serve as a rational refutation of his claims
Given that the earth's age as estimated has ranged from 12.5 to 17 billion years over the past 30 years that I've been paying attention, I assumed the universe was about that size, maybe 2 or 3x that. How could it be larger if light couldn't even have gotten to the edge?
So I'm rather relieved to see it's that huge. I wonder how they can estimate that, though, given that they could, at most, see only what, 12.5 billion light years worth?
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
An infinite yet finite universe is too "illogical" to "out-there" to comprehend just as "what lies beyond the physical universe" is incomprehensible. God can do the 'impossible'.
Dude, they don't even bother to _pretend_ having a life anymore... *sigh*
Nope. Sorry to correct you AGAIN, but PERCEPTION is what it's all about. His complaint was related to how he was treated. He seems to have a structural problem with bumping into exactly the same treatment in different scenarios and with different people. I explained how he was most likely perceived.
;-)), because basically that's what you did when you pointed out that - in your view - I was guilty of the same behaviour (i.e. using a fallacy) as the person I myself was criticizing. The fact that you cannot follow my reasoning ("it came out of nowhere") perhaps indicates that the brilliance of my statement regarding the fallacy of pointing out fallacies of those who point out fallacies has (perhaps understandably) eluded you ;-)
;-) If you walk away from this discussion slightly more educated or stronger than before, then we are both winners today.
My intention was to enlighten him about how he was perceived, so that he can try different routes in the future. I do not believe he is getting his point across by a) making claims he does not want to defend in the same public forum he posted it in and b) makes numerous statements in which he brands himself the victim of attack (thereby implicitly branding the ones with opposing opinions as aggressors). When they start posting polite refutations, he goes "ah, SEE how they are attacking me?!?". There have already been several well-written refutations of his claims, so I see no need to add to that.
Whenever I post my opinion, I am willing and able to defend (or at least explain) it in the same place where I sparked a discussion. I don't go e.g. to religious websites to post my anti-religion opinions and then tell them that they're so "mean" over there that I won't discuss my obviously true (i.e. presented as such) claims.
Perspective and perception are the keywords in this little tangential debate. Apparently, you've never heard of "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" (look it up
No fear, I seek only to enlighten. Sometimes kindly and sometimes harshly, even to those who are fearful of revealing their usernames
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
"Scientists have announced tantalising hints that the Universe is actually relatively small"
Relative to...? Apparently our the Universe pales in comparison to the relatively large the Universes.
Two problems:
1. I never wanted to defend creationism in my initial post. I was simply providing a link to a creationist theory that involved a finite universe, because I thought it was on topic, directly linked, and interesting to creationists and evolutionists alike. It is not true that every time a person posts something like that, that they are required to summarise their beliefs then defend them.
2. I have taken the path of putting down my views and defending them before. So I have tried the method you suggest, multiple times. Every time I end up with a horde of "reply to your post" emails in my inbox, about half of which are insulting and inflamatory. I have had at least one guy post as AC consistently telling me he wishes I would die and other inappropriate statements. I have to endure the worst of slashdot each time. So I restrict my debating to email discussions in the hope that I can filter out the worst, and talk to those interested in genuine discussion. This is a new approach for me, and the second time only I've taken it of many postings
This time I have received far less grief, and a couple of enquiries in my inbox - so it makes me less restless, less irritated, and hopefully I can actually talk seriously with a handful. Previously after the noise dies down, I'd talk with a few people, and we'd begin to get somewhere in our discussions, but no longer be able to post replies because it's an old story. So slashdot is a terrible medium for discussion of this for so many reasons. Not to mention the need to protect one's pride when it's in front of an audience.
i thought that most of our quantum theories hinged on the idea that the universe was infinite, and the multiple universes can and do interact.
That's a particular interpretation of QM, which nobody believes anymore, if anyone ever did. It has many problems including a lethal allergy to Occam's Razor.
It's just one of those catchy ideas that the public can't get out of their mind, like the tongue having sweet/sour/salty sections - completely false as well.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
I thought that space was infinite... What gives?
ubi dubium ibi libertas.
Look, I don't have any "beliefs", I simply accept what empirical evidence shows. Said evidence shows that the Earth is quite old, and humans evolved from chimps. That is the simplest, most logical explaination that is backed up by empirical evidence.
Then you creationists come along and work backwards from the Bible, add a bunch of non-sensical axioms, and come up with models of how it's possible that the Earth is only 7,000 years old...
Why not work forwards from what is observable, instead of backwards from a bunch of fairy-tales? To do otherwise is simply not science.
If you want to present your beliefs on /. in a story about science, you'll have to back up your beliefs a little better to be taken seriously.
Now, if you care to respond in the forum instead of telling me to email you, I would be willing to look at any information you have to present. Some links would be fine. I'll take a look, but I don't expect to be impressed.
OTOH, kudos to you for presenting opinions that are so unpopular around here :) If nothing else, it sparks interesting "discussion."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
And what do you need to drop to have Hexadecanions? Commutativity of addition? %-P My head is going to explode.
And yes, the books where I read about there not being 3-dimensional numeric systems were seriously outdated.
And in each cube, there is a different deathtrap...
Eat at Joe's.
I guess there are some researchers out there who get a kick out of such studies...
Actually, the many-worlds interpretation is still alive and well within the physics community. (However, it is not correct to say that the "worlds" can and do interact; that would violate the linearity of the theory.)
Wish I had some of whatever they have been smoking!
Maybe space isn't infinite. If not going into a straight line your are bound to run into something.
The space in my apartment is finite. I walked in a straight line and ran into a wall. This hurt my head. When walking in an arc I found that I was able to traverse the room without a problem, but then again this wasn't a straight line.
Nope, it's S(3) moving through 2D 'space'.
No, it's S(2) moving through a 2D plane, E(2), in a box, E(3).
If you stack together the 2D planes you get a 3D box. If you stack together the points and S(1) circles you get S(2).
In a similar manner, it's S(4) moving through 3D 'space'.
No. It's S(3) moving through a 3D box in E(4).
If you stack togther the 3D boxes you get E(4). If you stack together the points and S(2) spheres you get S(3).
S(n) means the sphere (just the shell and not the insides) of dimension n. It does not refer to the dimension of Euclidean space that the sphere lives in.
E(n) means Euclidean, or flat, space of dimension n. S(n) lives in E(n+1).
S(1) is the 1D circle that lives in the plane, E(2)
S(2) is the 2D Earth glove that lives in a box, E(3)
s(3) is the 3D hypersphere that lives in E(4)
And If you are going to argue that stacking together lower dimensional projections is not a good visualization then I will have to argue against that too. We don't visualize 3D space in its entirety. We only visualize 2D projections of various Euclidean transformations. Our brain "fakes" 3D. We conceptualize 3D space.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
Lets say the universe is a soccer for the sake of argument; turn the soccer ball inside out and the universe is on the outside and the inside does not exist and is infinite. so the universe could be expanding toward the center from all points and again the center does not exist and is infinite. Perhaps what is on the outside (otherside) of the expanding edge of the universe is the exact point from where it started.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
"Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" only applies if I'm saying that something you said in the past invalidates what you're saying now, with no rational reason
If there is a rational connection, it is not a fallacy in the first place (this is a very important concept). "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" is only a special case of the instances when there is no rational connection
It is not a free ticket that allows you to make any fallacies you want, as long as you accuse someone else of making one first (whether or not your accusation is false) - that's you committing an odd variant of "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" by insisting that what you've said in the past somehow makes other people's claims invalid, without a valid reason (the fact that you claimed "fallacy" first isn't a valid reason).
When I pointed out yours, there was a rational connection.
-
The portrayal that you were an innocent messenger trying to help him out doesn't seem to be consistent with these quotes:
"If you're interested in a discussion, how about we talk about why The Bible depicts God as a cowardly Saddam-type figure who kills kids"
"Let us also not forget that God is anti-democratic, encourages murder for 'moral' reasons, considers women inferior, etc, etc according to The Bible."
"Please excuse me while I find a less violent way of thinking about the universe, life and everything."
Here is the rational connection: the quotes will almost unquestionably be perceived as an attack, because they are, and they will most likely see you as a person that is hateful and dismissive towards them. I can understand why, considering that other than changing the subject to attack him, telling him that he's wrong simply because you think he is, and claiming that if he points out the fact that you're attacking him it proves him wrong, your first post said absolutely nothing. That doesn't sound like the helpful enlightening messenger
Perception is only useful in how you frame your arguements, it does not make up the arguements themselves, and it alone does not prove or disprove any arguement. Maybe you would be more able to discuss things with him if you present yourself as a person that he wouldn't mind talking to
-
Remember the concept, if there is a rational connection, it is not a fallacy in the first place? If someone is in fact being attacked, it is perfectly valid for them to claim so, and it is just as bad of a fallacy for you to dismiss their claim of attack without a rational reason
Even more irrational is claiming in advance like you did that any future claim of attack will be a fallacy. Pointing out in advance that he'll point out that you're attacking him doesn't mean you're not attacking him, and it doesn't prove his arguement wrong
You're also implying that if he sometimes claims that he's being attacked, and if some of those claims are false, then all of them are false
This is you invoking "Argumentum ad ignorantiam".
All of this seems to serve no purpose other than an attempt to attack him and get away with it. Even if you were kind enough to apologize in advance.
-
As far as the idea of the brilliance of your statements eluding me, that would be the the "Existential fallacy" - it is true, it did elude me, but only assuming there is brilliance in the first place
I consider everything to be a learning experience, including this, and I try to take any opportunities I can to learn... but I have not yet reached the point where the only thing to do is enlighten.
Well, my view is this: if you believe in your opinions and you stand behind them, then any negativity from others should be deflectable. Sometimes I state my own opinions, knowing that I might most likely receive some criticism... I don't mind that.. sometimes I reply, sometimes I don't.
;-)
It should be noted that I absolutely do not agree at all with the AC guy making inappropriate comments. There's an AC trying to point out my own mistakes for some reason. That's okay. I will reply once in a while. It was my own initiative to post a comment after all.
I firmly believe that from an explorative point of view, any theory that has as a basis or conclusion that "some guy in the sky did it all" is useless, since the discussion will then shift to "ok, but who made the big guy in the sky". That is when suddenly it is pointed out that we as humans will never be able to understand the big guy, but we can try by having certain views on homosexuals and several political issues. (Note that I am putting this pretty bluntly to emphasize the perception) It just seems so much more reasonable to start exploring the universe without preconceived ideas on what the conclusion should look like.
I will respect that fact that others may have a different opinion. I do not believe that the fact that you and I have a different opinion will have an adverse effect on either of our lives, so although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I do wish you good luck in having constructive discussions about them in the future. As you have noted, it is a topic that evokes strong emotions with some people (like myself), so some patience is necessary
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
Hi... it took you a while to reply, but I was not disappointed with your effort. As you have come to expect, I will not agree with the bulk of your points in my following reply ;-)
;-)
1) "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" -- I pointed out (what I saw as) a fallacy, then you pointed out a fallacy in my post. Perhaps you need to show me some (online) references of your definition, because the ones I know about come down to (simply put): "you do it too". Even if what you say is true, my original claim about you using this fallacy (which means I sort of made the same fallacy) would perhaps be erroneous, but certainly not "out of nowhere".
2) Links about killing kids - in my view, the Bible contains mention of a LOT of violence, usually for reasons modern society would find petty and/or criminal. In MY view, telling people what THEIR OWN Holy Book (also) considers "correct behaviour" may not be entirely innocent, but it may encourage them to open their eyes to the entirity of their own religion and not just the passages that fit their own opinions or agendas, e.g. it's OK to say "it's in the Bible" if you want to hate homosexuals, but you're not allowed to stone your wife if you find out she wasn't a virgin. In my view, the proof of almost any religion's falsehood lies exactly in the inpracticality of that religion itself. Perhaps if would be a fallacy to generalize this, but as the child abuse in the Catholic Church has shown, simply the fact that people claim they are "good" or "close to God" or live in/close to the "house of God" does not make them immune to monstrous behaviour.
3) "telling him that he's wrong simply because you think he is" -- well, as a starting point of proof, I included at two links that can be independently examined on a pro-religion site. If this was seen as an attack, then indeed the Bible should be (partially) seen as an attack on our modern-day values.
4) How come I can write several messages that were seen are attacking and dismissive and I get rarely any negative replies at all? I do not complain about people attacking me because of my point of view. Even if I did get attacked, it would only strengthen me to better examine my views and find better reasoning to defend them when and where I choose. It is from that mindset that I do not understand that someone will complain about attacks immediately. I consider it evasive in a way. Perhaps the guy's actions and thoughts are entirely reasonable, but I perceive it as insecurity.
So let me end with one positive note... we have exchanged a few messages now. I do appreciate the fact that you take the effort to give replies to what I'm writing. I wouldn't bother replying anything if your posts were on the "u suck" level. It may be a minus point of course that you are in almost complete disagreement with me, but I'm convinced that I will never be able to have a remotely interesting discussion with anyone who will completely agree with me on all points
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
I had an experience with a man who took over a server I had been running. He reinstalled his own preferred flavour of Linux on it, and consequently couldn't get email to work. He spent ages trying to figure it out, and I had a look for him too. I told him that the firewall was the problem - but he wouldn't listen to me. I did more looking just to be sure, but he still wasn't persuaded. I asked others who knew their stuff, and they all said firewall too, but he *still* wouldn't listen. So I gave up, because there was no way to convince him. A week later he realises that the problem was the firewall.
That's how I feel when I argue evolution on slashdot. People just won't listen. I'm not at all afraid of getting criticism - what frustrates me is that feeling of banging my head against a brick wall. And there is one particular argument that I think is a *very* powerful testimony against one evolutionary dating method, but every single time the evolutionist comes up with the most inane defences. As an analogy, imagine a building with a door that you have been instructed cannot be opened. You try and are able to open the door. You try to tell others, but they won't believe you, even though you open and close it in front of their eyes - they just quote the instructions saying that the door cannot possibly be opened. That's what I loathe.
Sometimes I state my own opinions, knowing that I might most likely receive some criticism... I don't mind that.. sometimes I reply, sometimes I don't.
Right. In this case, I hardly even stated an opinion - but rather a link to someone else's thoughts for those interested. I tried to exercise my right to not reply, as you say you sometimes don't - but then you are telling me that I should.
I firmly believe that from an explorative point of view, any theory that has as a basis or conclusion that "some guy in the sky did it all" is useless, since the discussion will then shift to "ok, but who made the big guy in the sky".
It will not be pointed out that it is merely beyond our understanding, but also why. We live in a universe where we have freedom of movement through certain dimensions, but on others our course is inescapably fixed. Any Creator will be outside the bounds of such dimensions, able to manipulate and control them at will. Since our minds are bound up inside these dimensions, how can we possibly understand those things outside them? The dimension I refer primarily to is time. So it's not just a careless argument of "we can't understand that" - there are excellent reasons why. I can provide an analogy if you want to understand it more clearly.
Off topic - one does not have to be religious to see that homosexuality is unnatural - and also something that nature would select against (creationists do not reject natural selection, a common misunderstanding of evolutionists - scientific american's "15 answers to creationist nonsense" claims we reject natural selection, which we do not).
I do not believe that the fact that you and I have a different opinion will have an adverse effect on either of our lives, so although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I do wish you good luck in having constructive discussions about them in the future.
I personally do not believe in aliens. I've seen the chances of evolution occuring, and it's a chance of 0. Especially if the universe is finite (back on topic!). To expect me to believe that this should happen twice in the same universe is just absurd. From a christian perspective, I believe it is possible that God created life on other worlds, but I don't count on it. Anyway, here's the point: because I don't believe in aliens, the question of whether they exist or not is unimportant to me. I think, "well, if they exist then cool, but it really doesn't affect me one way or the other". On the ot
What is it?
(Not that it matters that much... it's not as if a flaw in one evolutionary dating method casts doubt on any of the others, let alone evolution as a whole..)
Obviously, your argument isn't as devastatingly convincing as you think it is.
That was the point: if we can't possibly understand the explanation, if it's forever off-limits to human comprehension, then it's a useless theory.
What do you mean, "unnatural"? It occurs in nature, amost other species. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says that it should be wiped out of the gene pool, either: many traits that aren't selectively positive stabilize at a minority fraction of the population.
Nobody knows how to calculate the probability of evolution occurring. You certainly haven't "seen" the chances.
Well, you descibe the problem with completely different opinions: persons A and B will have an entirely different opinion. Person A will see B as 'blind' and B will see A the same way. Both may be entirely decent and friendly people. Your analogy can be bent in several ways depending on what you find correct. Certainly the "the door cannot be opened" argument can also be used for people who try to prevent people from trying to study nature's workings.
Right. In this case, I hardly even stated an opinion - but rather a link to someone else's thoughts for those interested. I tried to exercise my right to not reply, as you say you sometimes don't - but then you are telling me that I should.
No, I was telling you that you shouldn't complain when people respond negatively or complain about people having done so in the past. Certainly you do not believe that your point of view is so immensely solid that no possible counterargument can be given? If that's the case, then there is no point in discussing the topic with you at all.
Off topic - one does not have to be religious to see that homosexuality is unnatural - and also something that nature would select against
Nope, it happens in nature as well. In fact, it's mostly among the more intelligent species where non-reproductive sexual interactions occur. Even if it did not occur in nature at all, then still it wouldn't be a guideline for what would be "moral" for humans (e.g. I don't walk around naked like most animals do). The fact that YOU cannot understand how two people of the same gender could ever possibly love eachother doesn't mean that their feelings aren't real and inferior to what heterosexual couples are feeling. (Note: no, I'm no homo but I'm not a homo-hater either).
Are you open at all to the idea that there may NOT be a "creator" at all.. or the idea that your religion (I'm assuming you are religious here) might be fundamentally flawed? I personally see theories of evolution as most likely right now, but I'm not "married" to the idea. I accept that there may be a more fitting theory... but it should be one that gives some "grip" on understanding reality.
Let us assume that there is actually a Creator that we cannot understand by definition. Ok, fine.. but how will our understanding of the working of nature have progressed then? A theory that says we cannot understand what we were trying to understand doesn't seem very helpful. An entirely valid creationist theory would be that aliens created humans and those aliens were created by an external Creator. After all, the reasoning of that Creator cannot be understood by us so any random action can be attributed to that Creator. Your counter-argument would be that it's "absurd" that this would happen or that "it's just not possible", but.. hey.. wouldn't that make you attempt to understand the Creator? In fact, you cannot disprove any variant on a creationist theory, unless you use religious texts as backup... which brings us to the following point:
It's the same for questions of creation or religion. When you don't believe it's hard for you to see the importance - but if you ever come to accept our views then you will suddenly see just how critical and life changing they are.
Okay, so are you telling me that the path YOU followed is the ONLY path the enlightenment? Who are you to tell me that the way I have developed my own views is in any way inferior to yours? I have experienced life-changing (enhancing) developments that might almost be described as spiritual... and they were *entirely* non-religious. It is EXACTLY that kind of arrogance and you-are-blind belittling that is common to organized religion. I accept that different people may have different paths to reaching a state of 'spiritual' contentment. You have convinced yourself that your own path is the only path. There are more doors in my hallway.
I would make the claim that the main purpose of Creationism is not in fact to provide any workable theory
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
I called you deluded because you were confusing bogus science(or at least very poor science) with actual science. Real science doesn't work the way creationist scientists do, however much they claim to be doing real science. I would love to point out the holes in whatever you are personally basing your exact creationist beliefs on, but you refuse to post a link in a public forum. If you are too stubborn to post a link in a public forum, then it's not worth my time. I refuse to email you, because frankly, I prefer not to give out my email address to people I don't know, especially persons who are offended so easily.
I called your beliefs "fairy-tales", because that is what they are to me. I am sorry that offends you; would you like me to pretend otherwise so as to spare your feelings? I have no more reason to believe the Bible than I do old "fairy-tales" about Zeus sitting on Mount Olympus shooting lightning bolts from his ass. To be fair, I would probably be a little less harsh if I were dealing with someone so primitive they believed that old nonsense, but you're grown up enough to accept what other people really think about your beliefs, no?
Slashdot is one of the poorest mediums for discussing evolution and creation.
Why? Because people, not being face-to-face, are more comfortable asking hard questions? Being exposed to a lot of Christian "teaching," I find that Christians often use intimidation as a means of silencing dissent. There is no public discourse among average Christians.
I'm trying a different approach
It doesn't seem to be working well. I think it's just scaring away everyone who is interested; your approach is reminiscient of Scientology... "Let's discuss this in private and I'll let you in on the 'truth.'"
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If that is the case, you must live in a disjoint section of the physics community from myself.
What country are you in?
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot