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.
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).
I know you've heard them before, but the biggest and most egregious one: claiming that what you do is anything resembling science.
Think what you will about the various results coming out of cosmology and whether or not the Universe is flat or finite or what Dark Energy is, there is just so much evidence that the Univese (and the Earth) is billions of years old and that life evolved from lower forms that it's batty to dismiss it. To dismiss it on religious grounds and then assert that what you're doing is science is downright fraudulent.
-Rob
OK, nevermind the part where you use a piece of sports equipment to describe the nature of the cosmos, let's look at the trouble with a finite universe: Conservation of Energy! We'd all go blind and burn to a freakin' crisp! The only reason the sky is black is because the universe is not only infinite, but it's also simultaneously expanding to absorb the energy. ("Absorb" is actually a poor choice of words, but its effect is similar.)
That was actually an objection to an infinite universe. An infinite, static universe that had always been here would have a sun-like radiation density everywhere on the sky; this is Olber's paradox; see, for example, http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-5/olb ers.html
The fact that the night sky is dark tells us either that the Universe is finite (without the peridodic boundry conditions that you'd get in modern versions of a finite Universe-- similar to the periodic boundry conditions that we have in the two dimensional space that is the surface of the Earth), that the universe is finite in age (so that light hasn't had time to reach us from the farthest reaches), or that it's expanding (so that redshift decreases the energy of more distant objects). Few cosmologists today disagree that that the Universe's age is finite, even though the simplest models supported by the data suggest it is infinite in extent.-Rob
Some of those "huddled, wretched masses" are, right at this very moment, sitting idly and contemplating the universe in all its glory.
Think about it.
KFG
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.
You're right and you're wrong. They're the same in that both are based on assumptions or faith. They're different in that science makes testable predictions. I haven't seen any good prophets around lately.
Physics: Making the universe open source.
You're posting about some theory that claims to be scientific, but at the same time you state you're not interested in dicussing its weaknesses. This is the attitude that many creationists develop, and it explains why it's mostly creationists that refute (other) creationsts' theories.
Fundamentalism is irreconcilable with modern science; fundamentalism means inductive research, while empirical science means deductive research. Scientific methodology doesn't allow you to just try and prove the correctness of some arbitrary theory (like put forward in the Bible or the Koran), you'll have to look at nature itself and distill your theories from observations; not the other way around. This is the fundamental weakness of creationism.
Scientific methodology was devised as a tool to weed out superstition; you just can't support your personal faith by scientific methods; it's like using science to prove that science is wrong.
I will say a couple of things though.
* any discussion of origins is not scientific in nature. Science deals with the observable and falsifiable. Example: "archaeopteryx is the transitional form between reptiles and birds". That is a completely unscientific statement - there is no way to test it or falsify it. Now that doesn't mean it's invalid - but you utilise philosophical methods to prove or disprove the statement. But the statement has nothing to do with science
* I never claim that dealings with origins are science. They are philosophical in nature, and employ scientific evidences to make the case. It's a subtle but important difference.
* There is much evidence that the universe is old, but not the earth. And that's not something I'm willing to go into detail in on slashdot for the afforementioned reasons. The tiresome argument of "there's so much evidence" just doesn't cut it. I've looked around for the evidence, and found it wanting. Why shouldn't I be entitled to disagree if I think that the evidences used are circumstantial at best?
* One final note - I am yet to meet an evolutionist who truly understands the creationist position. I've met many who think they do, but not a single one does. When they talk to me, they say "well, that's not what other creationists have said". I'm constantly surprised by this - because what I say is very close to what the major creationist organisations have researched and believe. It makes me think that they've often argued against imaginary points. If the scientific america's "15 answers to creationist nonsense" is any indication of what the average evolutionist thinks we teach, then it's no surprise there's so much FUD about our position.
So I'd recommend you look into our position, and also seriously examine the evolutionist one to see if all those "evidences" are really so strong.
If I understand it correct you are suggesting that only on the inside the rules of physics apply but not on the outside.
The rules of physics working is what the universe is. There is no outside.
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
Thanks for respecting that. Would you mind emailing me at sat at tyreth dot homelinux dot org? Usually when I post links, people feel a need to reply to me with arguments on the website, which also becomes tiresome. I'm happy to discuss in a more controlled way though :) If you tell me a bit about what you have seen and thought, I might be able to direct you more accurately to useful resources.
Ah, yes, the old "secret evidence" tactic. Don't post your links publicly because you're afraid of what people might say when they actually see them.
The same thing that led us all to believe we'd find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
-Rob
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).
Did no one else think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy parallels with the game of cricket?
--
$tar -xvf
Um, this flies in the face of the evidence. The better fed and cared for people are, the lower their population growth rate. Check into the figures yourself. It appears that the biggest danger to a society where few are poor, and even then it's a relative sense of poor, as pretty much everyone gets all the food and whatnot they need, the biggest danger is at that point, population growth tends to bottom out and start going negative. The US would already be shrinking if we weren't getting better and better and keeping people alive longer and longer, and we still have immigration. This tends to be true in any richer nation. If the would could be brought to the US median standard of living, evidence suggests there would be no worries about overpopulation, rather we'd have to start worrying about whether our lifestyle is going to lead to our eventual extinction due to our failing to have two children each.
We are already too many on this earth.
Why do you say that? We grow enough food today to feed over 12 billion people, and throw half of it away every year. And we could easily grow many times what we do with the land we have available. We have plenty of fresh water available, even if we aren't always the best at distributing it. We really have no problems with overpopulation, what we have are problems with population density in certain areas (while other areas, sometimes even more habitable ones, are completely unused), and these could be easily solved if we had the will to do so. We have political problems masquerading as population problems. We have precisely zero actual population problems.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."