Slashdot Mirror
Evidence for a Flat Universe?
mattorb writes "The New York Times [free reg.req.] has an interesting article about a recent cosmological experiment whose results rather strongly imply a flat (omega equals 1) universe. Basically, the authors measured the scale of small variations in the cosmic microwave background, which yields strong constraints on allowed cosmologies.
The abstract from the preprint (off LANL astro-ph) is here. Caveats: this is a preprint -- meaning that it hasn't been refereed yet. Also, questions are always raised about the precision of such "angular power spectrum" measurements -- who knows if this result will hold up. But it's an interesting thing to talk about."
but do we fall off if we sail to the edge ?
I have always wondered about this idea. It is an idea that keeps coming up more and more. It is just hard to imagine a FLAT universe...
huh?
The concept of a "flat earth" was discredited shortly after the Roman empire fell. Besides, wouldn't this completely invalidate the big bang theory? I mean, if something explodes, it does so spherically(sp?) - not like a flat disk. Perhaps I'm missing something here... that just seems to stupid to have come from any sane scientist.
--
Also takes out some good sci-fi plots, unfortunately.
--
Okay, suffice it to say, my brain isn't at all suited for this type of information, so feel more than free to correct all the mistakes I'm about to make.
Also, be patient, I'm still trying to soak up the article...
Okay, wasn't it the Third Law of Thermodynamics that stated that eventually all motion would slow to a stop, and (at least in my interpretation) all systems would eventually just, spin down? Isn't this "cosmological constant" in complete opposition to that theory? It seems to me, and always has seemed to me, that things slow down, each orbiting object crashes into the object it's orbiting, ie: moon crashes into earth, earth crashes into sun, sun crashes into whatever it's orbiting, etc, until everything was back at one point in the universe, until we had another big bang...
Given that (probably fscked up) derivation on a principle, how does this work if we're constantly moving further away from the object we came from? Does this mean that if everything does end back up all in one place that it will be different place? Or that we will not ever be pulled back into one place?
Help?
This to me has seemed to be the most elegant and probable value of the Omega constant.
If this is valid, then it raises the question, Which iteration of Big Bang -> Big Crunch are we in? Or are there infinite iterations? It raises many intriguing twists in the physics of time and space. This fits nicely with the previous /. article on manyfold universe theory.
-----------------Remove the NOSPAM to spam me...
I don't know if that's the correct name for it, but it sounds like this rubber sheet theory may be correct. It's basically where the entire universe is a flat rubber sheet, and all the planets, stars and other heavenly bodies cause the sheet to have indentions based on the mass of the body. That's where we get gravity in space.
On the other hand, maybe the universe is like a big sheet of paper and it's only a matter of time until God folds us up like a plane and throws us away. Maybe He's got a circular file too.
Would someone mind giving this dumb high school student the background physics necessary to understand the article? :-)
Thanks in advance.
flat in this sense just means not curved. It has nothing to do with edges. It just means that two straight lines parallel to each other with NEVER intersect, extended throughout time and space. Basically the Universe isn't in a snow-globe, it just is.
+&x
What this means is that the universe is going to expand forever, so there is no big crunch, there is no "Omega Point", and there is no God.
Of course, you have to believe in Frank Tipler first to draw that conclusion.
But the question remains...Is there such thing as nothing? Or IS there an end? DOes it just keep going?
huh?
Reading the short blurb in the NYT article about inflation intrigued me greatly because it seemed to imply that we now consider the universe to have a defined state before the Big Bang. The implications of this are quite interesting - if one considers the Big Bang to be the beginning of the universe in an absolute sense, with nothing at all before it to explain, one can in a sense simply ignore what brought the Big Bang into being - the very question seems to be undefined. By describing the Big Bang as being initiated by stretching of space caused by interactions of (I assume because of the mention of grand unified theories) super strings, this article caused me to wonder about what that pre-universe world was like, and what its origin was. Can these super strings have always existed, hanging in space, unexplained and unexplainable? This is also sort of related to the notion of space as a bounded entity - in a flat universe, wouldn't that imply that you could leave space? (albeit possibly only if you're massless) Can anyone with a much better knowledge of advanced theoretical physics shed some light on these issues for me, or at least provide further food for thought?
_________________________________________________
Oh, but it was on NYT. I forgot that important breakthroughs in science are nowadays published there. They even had that great stuff from Fleischmann and Ponds.
At some point even a minor fluktuation should be enough anyway to let an expanding universe collapse. At least less bad than a universe oszillating at the its brink.
I'd like to see /. to a follow-up with stories like these. Maybe after the IPO you guys can hire some "researchers" to help with the street cred.
An interesting discovery but not spectacular. Straight lines go Straight. The Universe is in Balance. Any new age guru could tell you the same, without dem fancy 'puters.
+&x
then why are there such large redshifts?
If it is flat, doesn't it mean the universe is two-dimensional?
eventually enough black holes get together and reverse the trend (think sine wave) and everything starts to come back together. Eventually everything compresses back into the size of that grapefruit of yore and we bang again (notice the "eventually"s, this takes a long time). I think the "dark(anti?) matter" is part of the equation, and there are probably other parts we don't have a grasp on yet, but a continuing pattern of death and rebirth seems to fit with pretty much everything else in the universe.
I don't see this NYT article as discrediting my theory, we merely haven't crested the hill yet and it looks like it goes up forever from our limited perspective.
my $.02(US) (doing very well vs. the Euro BTW)
+&x
Is it only me, or is it normal to have problems trying to "visualize" or imagine these things? I'm having definite problems understanding this.. So what can the universe be described as? the surface of a balooon? a plane?
I won't even start to think in what dimensions it could be flat, I mean we obviously have three and, aaaagh *starts to pull his own hair out* maybe I should go back to my routers before my brain explodes....
If anybody can enlightenme, I'd appreciate it.
they said that the constant is very close to 1, I didn't read anybody saying, "All our data show us that the answer is EXACTLY 1." Anything that is the slightest bit off 1 in either direction will eventually unbalance the whole thing (think chaos theory). I take this data to mean that the universe isn't "in" anything, it just is. There are no external forces actuing upon it.
+&x
...take this discussion HERE!!!.
+&x
This study was obviously paid for by Microsoft ;-)
Here's a link to a Caltech Research group that is working with the UMass scientist who sent in the abstract to the xxx.lanl.gov site. This is the research group run by the phys prof I had last year for freshmen physics, all the work he does is on the Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation (CMB). He showed us some very cool pictures that a BOOMERANG satellite had taken of the CMB. Consequently, this Slashdot article refers to information gleaned from another BOOMERANG run. More information than I can understand about this is here:
http://astro.caltech.edu/~lgg/boom/boo m.html
parallel lines do intersect according to the general theory of relativity. Where there's a mass, the universe curves, thus parallel lines can intersect (as in double stars that are in fact a single star with a huge mass between it and the earth). Maybe what they mean is "do not intersect" where there's no mass...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
. . . except for the part about Canadians. The sooner we nuke those bastards, the better.
I see the err in my ways, the veil of stupidity (liberalism) has been lifted from me and I repent for my evil sins.
For I am not only Liberal, but atheist and Canadian! good god!
Chalk this AC up as (Score:2) Funny ass Nectarine.
Remove the NOSPAM to spam me...
Two words for you AC: The Crusades.
Any time we dehumanize other people, something like the Crusades is bound to happen
--
Harvey, who probably just fell for a joke
The best way to think about a flat universe expanding is to do a little bit of geometry. Measure all the coordinates with respect to yourself at the origin. Then have all the coordinates increase with time by being multiplied by a time-varying factor a(t). Then dr/dt (the velocity at which a galaxy moves away from you) is r times da/dt, which we call the Hubble constant. If you transform coordinates to another origin, the universe looks the same to the guy there too. Galaxies move away from him at the rate r * da/dt as well. It is true that far away from you the galaxies are receding faster than c, but those galaxies are "causally disconnected" from the observer. This means they cannot interact with the observer in any way. Such things are not of physical interest. As for the "What does the universe expand into" difficulty, keep in mind that the Universe, by definition, has no outside. Also, we should keep in mind that the laws of physics need not conform to "common sense", which is formed through a rather limited range of physical experience.
If you truly believe in what you have written, then why are you an anonymous coward?
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boome rang/team.html
Until recently, the Universe was thought as closed (or that it will slow and contract back as Energy dictates).
Recently, with deep space observations with a larger array of data to work with, Astronomers have calculated that the Universe it Open (under constant accelleration and would not slow down). This baffled much of the scientific community for awhile and soon lots of theories about a variable speed of light arose. (I think this appeared in the December 1998 issue of Scientific American, a summary of the Special Report exists here.)
This latest observation, though as limited as it is, makes some sense that it is a balancing compromise between two seperate observations/beliefs.
I can't say which is true, or which is false, just that it fits with everything else that has been said.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Human heads.
My guess is that the Universe could be classified as all three, at different times. I seriously doubt, however, that we will be able to make measurements far apart enough in time (since we live so pitifully short, relatively) to gain an accurate measure (think maxum? (vs quantum) mechanics).
+&x
If people choose to attack God by flaming my post, that's their problem. If they react to the plain, simple truth with insane rage, that's their problem. I'm not responsible for their behavior.
All I did was state the obvious truth as we all know it to be. Nobody flamed anybody. Inevitably, the liberals will start a flamewar, and then blame me for starting it (typical Liberal refusal to accept responsibility), but you and I both know that I didn't start anything. I can accept no blame for this.
Yes, it seems like "Nothing" must exist - if for no other reason then to provide a convenient, experiental medium for "Everything" to exist within. I think it depends on your definition of Nothing too - perhaps it is a plenum. Here's a little tidbit from the tao te ching regarding the idea:
"There was something formless and perfect before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty. Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name, I call it the Tao."
works for me......viva the Nothing!
I've read a few posts that seemed to imply that the big bang resulted in a big explosion, and that this somehow sent matter flying out in different directions. This is not the case.
The big bang, rather than an explosion, was an expansion of space; every second, the distance between two points increases. The red shift noted by Hubble was not due to galaxies moving apart within space, but due to the space between galaxies increasing.
The balloon analogy much beloved of popularisers is quite accurate in many ways; you just have to imagine that the ballon is the universe, and that there is no outside the balloon. Of course, that's not to say there aren't lots of other balloons; inflation theory suggests there are. But they're nothing to do with our universe.
One thing that amazed me about this piece was the precision that the scientists were capable of; the background ripples have a difference with the normal background of less than one part in ten thousand; it took the COBE satellite to detect them in the first place, and to have them detectable from inside the atmosphere was truly a monumental feat.
The suppression of Christians in the United States is already under way. It will get a great deal worse before it gets better. To protect my family from acts of violent retribution, I must conceal my identity. If you were a Christian, you'd understand that we live every day of our lives under threat of murder or imprisonment for our beliefs. It has happened to thousands already. It will happen to millions more. Even as we speak, two innocent men now languish in a California prison, destined for the electric chair when the corrupt court inevitably denies them a fair trial. Their only "crime"? Worshipping God. Obeying the commandments of God their Creator. They will be murdered for their worship, in cold blood and with the blessing of a criminal and illegitimate government.
It is precisely because of the truth of my statements that I must post as an AC.
..that you would say that on the same day I discovered this. Coincidence? I think not (but then again as part of the Matrix, I can't think "about" it in any rational sense.)
+&x
Stalin killed more people than the Crusades. Therefore, the Crusades were not a crime.
You can twist the facts all you like, you murderous bastard, but the truth will always out.
... they only believed it was twice as large as the size Columbus assumed. And now, guess who was right, and who was just extremely lucky ;-)
Say no to software patents.
No, that's not me. It's some disruptive loser who just wants attention.
And MEEPT is long gone.
Lotsa people on Slashdot. It shouldn't surprise you that one of them (me) knows the Truth.
so does God (roughly, and in different tenses).
+&x
So, does this mean that instead of expanding forever or eventually collapsing, the universe may just slow its growth asymptotically?
I kinda like that. it doesn't give you that 'holy shit the universe is just going to peter out into infinite nothingness' feeling. Nor does it give you that 'we are all going to be smashed into nothingness' claustrophobia. It just kind of keeps going, but slower, forever.
He turns up regularly in discussions that touch on science, women/gender, and Communism.
I'm almost certain it's the same guy.
Thank goodness for that. If the universe had come out closed then the IRS would eventually have introduced a "no time limit" law on the grounds that anyone that escaped would eventually have to come back.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
get a login so I can recognize you. Surely as a good Christian you realize the value of knowing the source of Information or Argument.
+&x
get a login so I can recognize you.
Were I recognized, that would only serve to lead abortionists to my children. I will not sacrifice their lives to satisfy your idle curiousity.
Surely as a good Christian you realize the value of knowing the source of Information or Argument.
My arguments come from God (whom you can NOT intimidate with your threats and persecutions). That is plain and as clear as day. I am only a conduit, and an anonymous conduit is as good as any other.
People, they are not saying the universe is flat in 3D, but 4D. We know by scientific observation that the Universe is not flat in three dimensions. Witness stars being in every direction of the sky. The Milky Way just tells us our galaxy is a relatively flat, spiral one.
When scientists talk about a flat, spherical, or saddle-shaped universe, they are talking about space-time, a four dimensional construct. Most scientists believe the universe is closed in three dimensions, (meaning no edge to sail off of, even if we could sail faster than the edge expands, a totally different matter), but whether it is closed or open in four dimensions is another matter altogether.
I hope that cleared things up.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
What a shame.
..you don't have access to guns do you? hmm, christian fundamentalist, uh-oh.
:-)
When people start to attribute their actions to outside forces things get scary. You do make a good joke though.
+&x
. . . self-described Libertarians who wanted just that. Their logic was, uh . . . "murky" might be a good word for it.
Anyhow, this guy (if it's the same one) sometimes posts as a fundie and sometimes as an extreme wacko libertarian. Both groups share a certain fondness for blind dogmatism, manichean paranoia, and millenarian arm-waving. He uses the same bad logic in either case, with minor concessions to the faith he's preaching at the moment. And IIRC he has claimed once or twice that a brutal theocracy is the only real freedom.
Anyhow, I know rational christians and rational libertarians. A dislike for the maniacs on the fringes of both groups should not be taken as a condemnation of the groups in general.
I'm just curious why you think that those who reject your basis for morality must have no morality?
Morality comes from God. Without God, "morality" becomes meaningless: You can say a thing is "wrong", but what makes it so? Nothing, of not God.
If people posit a false God and attribute morality to it, that seems at first like progress, but it's not, because that false God does not exist, and therefore has no Word for the world. That God can only say the words that its worshippers put in its mouth, so therefore any "morality" that results from that situation is a "morality" created and promulgated entirely by flawed human beings. It is only temporary, and it can have no absolute eternal value.
Finally, you can postulate a false God who exactly resembles the real one, much like Borges postulates an author who writes Don Quixote in the same words as the original ("Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote" -- it's in a couple of his collections). Well, if that were to happen, they would in fact be worshipping the one real, eternal and everlasting Creator whether they liked it or not. They'd go to Hell for attempting to worship a false god, but if they lived their lives according to Scripture (even under false pretenses), they would have committed no sin aside from the false-idol thing.
I'm also curious as to what words were spoken by Jesus Christ encouraging his followers to murder those who rejected him or his teachings?
Read the Old Testament. God's People have a right to defend themselves. Public rejection of God is supression of religion, and is therefore an attack on us. To do God's work on Earth, we must respond appropriately.
Just a quick comment on the "this is a preprint so it hasn't been refereed yet" comment. Erm, no exactly. In astronomy its very uncommon, and generally frowned upon, to release a paper to preprint before you've had it refereed. Certainly none of mine have ever landed on the preprint server before I fixed everything the referee wanted me to fix.
Al.
--
The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
This has to be either a joke that went a little too far, or else one of the sickest displays of doublethink I have ever seen in my life. For one thing, do you really believe he's bragging about practicing cannibalism? It seems to me he's making a joke about the sheer absurdity of confusing a nectarine with a human head.
As for the "amorality" of non-believers in the Christian God, that is patently absurd. It is possible to develop a morality without having it handed to you from on high, although in many of your examples (Islam, for example) it IS handed down in the form of their holy books, just as it is with you. Your choices are simply absurd - Buddhists and Hindus are known as some of the most peace-loving people in the world; Muslims respected Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book' and treated them as equals; they had an enlightened society while the Christian world was in the dark ages. Communism is not a religion, though I believe you refer to the common tactic in Socialism of encouraging atheism. Canadians? That doesn't even dignify a rebuttal!
Your love for your fellow man is obvious. ("Liberals usually have subnormal mentalities.", "howling insanity and sick hate") The only one displaying hate here is you. Way to walk in the path of Jesus; you've entirely missed his message. Religion is not a fight.
"Stalin killed thirty or forty million people. Stalin was an atheist. You figure it out."
Correlation does not imply causation, and you haven't even shown correlation here. You give one example of a notorious murderer who was an atheist and expect to judge all non-Christians by his actions? (Judge not lest you be judged, of course, but its pretty obvious that you're ignoring THAT one totally too.) This is no less absurd than saying:
Hitler ordered the slaughter of approximately 5,709,329 people.
Hitler had brown hair.
You figure it out.
The human race may be in danger, but if it is, it's from McCarthyist religiously intolerant bigots like you, not from decent, honorable people who occasionally make somewhat tasteless jokes.
_________________________________________________
First lets make sure everyone understands what they mean by a flat universe. This has nothing to do with the geometry of the universe. This we know to be small (i.e. curvature has to be on a very large scale) but this is talking about the expansion of the universe. As some people have already said this means that the universe will not grow forever or collapse. It will asymptotically approach some limit. But like I said this says ntohing about the geometry of the universe. We don't know what kind of "surface" the universe is on. Maybe the universe is on some N dimensional sphere or box, we just don't know.
:)
As to boomarang these results are nothing special. What could be special would the results from there Antarctica flight last winter (summer there). That result should be the best result at the time they publish. Off course a satelitte I worked on (MAP) will blow it away but it has some unfair advantages and it will be later (2002 for results I think).
Theorists want a flat universe for the simple reason that inflationary theory more or less requires it. We don;t really know how to easily understand this problem in a non flat universe. Pure and simply the math is much more elegant in a flat universe (ask Alan Guth or Andrew Linde).
As with all these experiments getting results, understanding your systematics and backgrounds are extremely difficult. Most importantly going from data to understanding the fundamental parameters requires some assumptions and is not as clear cut as anyone would like. However, having said that, I thnk they are on the right track here. In the near future new experiments like MAP and surveys like the Sloan All Sky Survey will bring a lot fo this together. We will understand this a lot better in 4 years I promise
PS I'm currently an astronomer at Harvard but was a grad student at U of Chicago 6 months ago (where a lot of this work is getting done)
PPS Hopefully I din't make any glaring mistakes
PPPS There are no implications for god or theology in all this mess (whatever you believed before you should still believe, well except maybe creation but even that you could argue maybe)
An often-used analogy about general relativity is that of an ant moving on the surface of an apple. Even if the ant moves 'straight' on the surface of the apple in the 2-dimensional sense, its path still curves when looked in 3 dimensions.
So in general relativity you can think of objects as traveling 'straight' if no force but gravity acts on them. Then you can work out the trajectories of particles much as you would work out the path of the imaginary ant as it explores the apple.
In general relativity you can think of a ball that you throw on the surface of earth as traveling 'straight' just as light travels 'straight', only in a different 'direction', because they move at different velocities.
General relativity predicts interesting (and experimentally verified) things, for example that time will pass very slightly (10^-10 or something like that) slower on the surface of earth than outside earth's gravity field. You can work this out by considering a light ray that is emitted from the surface of earth far into the space. As the light ray climbs its way up the gravity field, its frequency will get slightly lower, because it has to do work to move against the gravity. But you can also think of the light ray as moving 'straight'. Therefore, when the person far in space measures that a light ray, which has moved straight, has a lower frequency than when it was emitted, he must conclude that time moved slower where it was sent. :-)
Now, back to cosmology. Because the universe contains lots of matter, you would expect that 2 light rays, which are emitted in parallel some distance from each other, would eventually cross each other, because there will probably be some matter _between them_ on their path, which will pull them closer together.
But this seems to not be the case, which is unexpected and kind of beautiful! There is a 'cosmological constant' or something, which pushes the light rays apart from each other so that they indeed move 'straight'
Well, hope that helped, professional physicists, feel free to correct me...
Publicly rejecting God is not a supression of religion. If I say "I am an atheist", that does not affect your ability to worship God as you choose. On the other hand, killing someone for publicly rejecting God is murder, and a violation of the Ten Commandments. (Read that Old Testament yourself.) Judge not lest you be judged.
_________________________________________________
But between the Holocaust deniers and the free-market-uber-alles Vogons who claim just what you do, but with a straight face (because their ideology demands them to claim Communism as the ultimate evil, they must trivialize all other evils or else "prove" them to be communistic after all), it's not as amusing as it ought to be.
But your point is well taken, and to someone with a firm grip on reality, it is persuasive.
. . . Retribution for their crimes. This is called "justice". If they dare to defy God by defending themselves, that is called "murder" and "obstruction of justice", and they will be punished even more severely.
Seeing as I'm in astrophysics and finishing my master's thesis in a closely related field (dark matter), I thought I should reply.
The preprint is about fitting new observational cosmic microwave backround radiation data from BOOMERANG (basically a telescope mounted in an airplane) to the existing cosmological models.
These models are derived from some basic assumptions about the universe (homogeneous and looks the same from all directions) and Einstein's euqations. The models predict a non-static universe that can be flat, open or closed. i.e. the large-scale curvature of _space itself_.
Since the amount of space curvature is directly related to the mass in the universe _and_ thus the amount of "gravatation", the type of universe is dictated by the amount of matter present in the universe. a flat universe means that there exixts a mass density high enough to slow the expansion of the universe until it stops at infinite time. This critical mass density is normalized to one and called OMEGA.
an open universe has "negative" curvature, and will continue to expand forever. The universe does not have enough mass/gravity to slow the expansion to a stop. A closed universe has positive curvature and will slow to a stop, and collapse in some finite time. Maybe to a big crunch. As to where the universe expands to, and if there will be endless big bangs/crunches, people can only guess. Physics tends to break down in those areas.
The data in question (CMBR flucuations) has a direct relation to the amount of matter, and the "lumpiness" of the matter at a very early time in the universe's history. The free parameters in the accepted cosmological models are then varied (think fitting a striaght line to data points) until the data has a "maximum liklihood" of having these parameters.
One of these parameters, OMEGA, is confined to be between 0.85 and 1.25. So, there is a high chance that the universe is flat.
Unfortunately, other obervational evidence (galaxy dynamics) says that the amount of mass in the universe mesured so far has OMEGA = 0.35. OOPS! What about the other 0.65 for OMEGA = 1?
But, not to fear, this is where the cosmological constant comes in. It boils down to an added cosmological "force" that causes extra curvature (mass->gravity->curvature->state of universe) and thus can make the universe flat by boosting OMEGA to 1. Where it comes from, I don't know and don't want to hazard a guess. But the equations contain it!
As a little bit of extra correctness, the fitted models state the part of OMEGA due to mass is about 0.5, which is close to what the galaxy dynamical evidence states. Yay!
OK. back to writing my thesis.
"Posessing a degree in science does not necessarily make one a scientist"
Forgot to add in a link.
Find some info on wormholes here.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
Actually, I think they considered the journey impossible because they DID know (roughly) the circumference of the earth, and assumed he would run out of provisions before he hit Asia. But, "The New World" intervened and he survived; and everything changed.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
... Balloon Observations Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation ANd Geophysics!!
This can't help but catch on with the kids...
+&x
Anyway, here's a bunch of links within there:
Friedmann Universes: The three basic models of the universe that start off just after the big bang singularity.
No-Boundary Universe: Stephen Hawking's pet theory until at least '96. I don't know where he stands on it now.
An explanation of Space-Time: What this NYT article is saying is flat. Hmm... it's not that good.
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose debated on the nature of Space-Time in '95.
Does that help?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Straight ahead of him, nobody can go very far... -- Le P
I quote from the Chewbacca defense: "It doesn't make sense!!"
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."
"Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work." -Flaubert
The universe is flat, eh? Maybe it should talk to these people.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Columbus was the lucky one, because he was certainly not right. On the other hand, some historians believe that he knew, and that he knew about America as well:
He had good connections among Portuguese sailors, and there was a Portuguese settlement on Greenland, where there still circulated stories about Leiv Eiriksson and later explorers journeys west. According to some sources there were even maps in circulation, and it is possible that Columbus had access to those.
as a friend pointed out, the universe is *not* flat... ever seen Baywatch?
the asshole (who's obviously trying to make Christians look stupid)
Yeah, he's oppressing you. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Don't be so damn paranoid.
Relax. Consider getting a sense of humor. I hear all the best Irish jokes from Irish friends, and the same goes for every other ethnic and geographic group I know. Why can't Christians learn to laugh at themselves like the rest of us do?
BUT I strongly disagree with your comment that this was "old news." Nothing is ever old news, until it has been proven and re-proven and proven again. Period. Yes, there has been ample evidence that there is not enough matter to close the universe (ie, Omega_matter is not equal to one). There have even been articles published to the effect of "cosmology is solved" -- by something to the effect of Omega_baryonic = 0.1, Omega_non-b = 0.2, Omega_lambda =0.7, where the last term is an "equivalent density" arising from the cosmological constant term. I don't buy this (and I think a lot of other people don't buy it, either) because there are an awful lot of unanswered questions -- vacuum energy, fine, but show it to me. ("Demonstrations" of the Cassimir effect have failed to convince me so far, but maybe I'm being thick-headed.) And as I understand it (caveat: I'm no inflation expert), inflation predicts topological defects in the universe that have yet to be found (so far, anyway). It may be that we have the right picture -- then again, maybe not. Inflation's a damn good theory, but every piece of supporting evidence is still, at this point, a big deal (IMHO).
Enough ranting. My point is just that this was really a beautiful experiment, with a reasonably significant result. That's all.
Maybe he's overstating his case, but he's got a very strong point. There are a lot of dead kids in Mt. Caramel, TX and some dead people at Ruby Ridge who might like him to have been wrong. There are a lot of other dead kids in Oklahoma City whose parents deserve to know the truth about what happened.
He's not making Christians look stupid at all. He's making us look like we know what's being done to us, that's all. I'd advise you to get your own house in order before you start calling brethren "a**holes" for no good reason (you think that doesn't make us look stupid?!). And can the foul language while you're at it. There's no need for it. If you can't express yourself cleanly, you can't express yourself at all so don't try.
So entropy is only a measure of the probability of different things happening, and in a way
thermodynamics just says that the most probable things are likely to happen.
Reminds me of Murphy's Law. Perhaps we should make up a new twist on it for the universe: Anything that can drift apart, will.
Insert mind here.
("Liberals usually have subnormal mentalities.", "howling insanity and sick hate") The only one displaying hate here is you.
I mention some obvious facts, and you accuse me of "hate". If that's what "hate" is, then I'm proud to be doing it.
Liberalism as an ideology is devoted to the destruction of Christianity, as one of its primary goals. Its other goals are the destruction of capitalism, destruction of the family, etc. If that's not "sick hate", I'd really love to know what is.
Religion is not a fight.
When religion is attacked, it has a right to defend itself. If that requires a fight, so be it. It's not our choice.
The human race may be in danger, but if it is, it's from McCarthyist religiously intolerant bigots like you
That's the crowning obscenity of your doublethink rampage. How can I be "religiously intolerant" when my own religion is being suppressed? I take pride in being "intolerant" of crime, sin, treason, and pseudo-religious cults, but of religion I am as tolerant as they come: I have devoted my life to God. You can't get any more tolerant than that.
Muslims respected Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book' and treated them as equals; they had an enlightened society while the Christian world was in the dark ages.
This simpleminded and blatant lie betrays your utter ignorance of history. The muslim world emerged, literally, from the STONE AGE in the early decades of this century when they became wealthy enough from oil that they could buy foreign technology. Before then they had not even attempted the working of metal. They have no written language, and only the most fragmentary and worthless of oral traditions.
If you're not joking, um, you're missing something. There are an awful lot of observational clues that support the BB, and more particularly inflation -- this is probably kicking a dead horse, but the major ones:
Cosmic microwave background: In the BB theories, this is intepreted as the highly redshifted afterglow of the time when the (very hot, around 3000 K) universe became transparent. It's pretty hard to explain it in other ways, especially given that it is a perfect blackbody spectrum (to within something like one part in 10^5).
Hubble expansion: was this what you were referring to in the "Dopper effect theory" bit above? I have no clue. This has certainly not been "discredited" -- it's an observation that any theory must explain.
Ratio of light elements: The ratios in which certain elements (ie, Hydrogen to Deuterium) are found are very well predicted by BB theory. This is possibly the coolest constraint -- I don't really want to go into it here, but trust me. :-) (Elements higher on the periodic table were not formed in the big bang -- up to Iron, they were processed in stars, and after that, produced only in supernovae. Or so the theory goes.)
There are others, but you get the idea. Point is, inflationary Big Bang (the "inflation" part is more complicated than I want to explain here, but you need it, too, to explain the homogeneity of the CMB) is still very much alive.
The "before" picture is this chick with normal, natural, well-formed (above average, IMHO) breasts. No problem
Then the "after" picture ("more natural" it says -- b-b-b-buuulllllshit!) is like these huge things that just don't look normal.
What's the damn deal?!
This society has some serious problems.
Wait a second...I saw the title of the article and thought that they were saying the universe was not /hyperbolic/ or /convex/ but /flat/.
/topology/ (hyperbolic, flat, convex) is an entirely separate topic than the expansion rate (expanding, contracting, neither).
Aren't they using the wrong terminology if they are trying to say that it is neither expanding nor contracting? As far as I know, the
Just to verify, last time I checked, the consensus was that the universe's topology is hyperbolic.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Stalin killed thirty or forty million people.
Stalin was an atheist.
You figure it out.
Umm.. umm... *screws up forehead*...
A-hah! Got it!
It's an ad hominem argument, one of the Fallacies of Relevance!
The universe can definately not be flat. I mean, how non-imaginative could God get?
I doubt, therefore I may be.
People try to concieve of the Universe as a 3-Dimensional object.
That is not the way pupil. The universe is like a video game. The information is served only when you move the controller (you) in a certain direction. The visual information is only availible in your field of view.
There are many alternate universes (or video games). Each players saved game at a different spot. Never mind.
Who gives a shit about this universe crap.
. . only the unwary, the predisposed, and the gullible are apt to be fooled by their legitimate appeals.
I don't see a problem with that. What are you trying to suggest? That the predisposed, the unwary, and the gullible aren't worth one's time? That they don't deserve just as much attention as the rest of the human race?
I'm seeing some very exclusionary and elitist thinking here, and I don't much like it.
My logic prof (not to mention some random web page) told me that the argument from authority is a fallacy -- and that's good enough for me!
:)
Nice post, well stated.
But if the new research supports Omega=1, and you don't buy lambda (cosmological constant, gravitational repulsion built into spacetime) as the missing factor, where does the missing density come from?
You're in good company I guess. Einstein believed the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The punishment for sodomy is death. This is God's will. Deal with it. The Commandment not to kill obviously does not apply in cases where God Himself has specifically noted an exception.
"rather" explicitly
Oh, aren't we cute.
. . . may not be well known, but that will change.
We've had quite enough abuse from the USA, thank you very much. You, sir, will be the first victim of our revolutionary fervor. We really don't want to impose, though, so we'd like to get in touch and arrange a time and place that would be convenient for you.
The big bang was still an explosion -- just an explosion of space, not an explosion in space.
If you're not careful, the balloon analogy shows how a 2D universe (the surface of the balloon) expands from the viewpoint of a 3D observer outside the universe. (Pause for headscratching.) To get the right effect, you have to imagine that you're a 2D creature experiencing the expansion from a point on the surface of the balloon.
The analogy is particularly appropriate for this discussion because it also demonstrates how a universe can have curvature. In the case of a balloon, the curvature of the surface is positive. 2D creatures living is such a universe could deduce this fact by measuring the angles of a triangle and noticing that their sum is greater than 180 degrees.
Translation of the analogy -- from a positive-curvature 2D ballon universe to our flat 3D real universe -- is left as an excerise for the reader...
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Hitler ordered the slaughter of approximately 5,709,329 people.
No, Hitler killed 13 million people in the camps. 6 million Jews, 6 million Christians, and another million comprising all the Gypsies and those with birth defects that he were within his reach.
Not nice to be a Historical Revisionist. God will get you for that.
Hmm.. Elements higher than Iron were created in SuperNovae? That means that all the uranium,lead,etc on earth was formed in supernovae? What I don't get is how there have been enough supernovae in our part of the galaxy to produce this matter when the universe is approx 15 billion years old, and each star lives about 5 billion (I think).
Star lifetime is highly variable, with the stars that produce super novas living by the rule "Live Fast, Die Hard."
That explanation was pretty close but was slightly incorrect on some important points (I'm finishing my PhD in Astronomy, so have a least _some_ room to speak).
A flat universe (Omega_total = 1) simply describes the geometry of spacetime -- it is flat (i.e. parallel lines do not converge, triangles have 180 degrees). It says absolutely nothing about whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse. These bad assumptions are the result of years of astronomy classes that nay-sayed Einstein's Cosmological Constant (his " greatest blunder"). In those days, Omega_total, which equals Omega_cosmo_const + Omega_matter, was thought to equal just Omega_matter -- since Omega_cosmo_const was obviously 0. In that case, if Omega_matter = 1 then you get a universe balanced on the brink between eternal expansion and collapse.
But in the past couple years, numerous groups (the most famous using Type IA supernovae) have shown evidence that Omega_cosmo_const seems to be about 0.65 or so. Add that to the measurements of Omega_matter of about 0.35 and you get Omega_total = 1. The BOOMERANG measurements are simply an independent measurement of this, but this time using the cosmic microwave background -- a very important measurement.
If there is a cosmological constant, but Omega_total = 1, than the universe is flat, but the relative proportions of the two determine whether we get eternal expansion or not.
With current measurements, it looks like we have an open (eternally expanding) and flat universe. This saves (barely) Inflation, and solves a bunch of other Astro problems. Although now we have another big question: If this is real, Where in the hell does the Cosmological Constant come from?
If we are in a flat universe. How could the universe have started? With a big bang, there would have had to have been a huge amount of gravity (or something) excerting an influence to make the universe flat. Just my 2 cents.
The truth about the universe is described in the book Horton Hears a Who.
For those nerds out there that grew up reading the PC BIOS source listing that was once published in the IBM PC Hardware reference manual, I strongly suggest you buy the above book and expand your mind a bit.
In my last paragraph I said that "it looks like we have an open (eternally expanding) and flat universe". I shouldn't have said "open", because in Cosmological parlance, that means negative curvature. So just skip that word and continue with "eternally expanding"!
You are correct and I am wrong! I just went back over my general relativity notes I I see my error right now.
Thank you for pointing that out. I just hope everyone else will read it as well!
"Posessing a degree in science does not necessarily make one a scientist"
Presumptions:
1 Omega = 1 OR Omega > 1
2 God exists
Conclusion:
I'm hungry. And I need to go to church tomorrow.
_______________________________
Flat just like britteny spears stomache!
W3WT!
Didja know the pink triangle as a symbol for homosexuality was invented by the Nazis? Gays were made to wear it, like Jews were made to wear the yellow star. So taking that as a positive symbol was a lot like adopting the word "queer" as a positive word: A big old middle finger at the swine of the world.
Anyhow, this thread has long since succumbed to Whatsisname's Law, the one about how discussions on the net always eventually degenerate into comparisons involving Hitler . . .
Don't forget to look at the stunning calligraphy on the walls of these buildings
I've seen that stuff. It's not writing, it's just squiggly lines. It doesn't mean anything. I spent some time looking at it, and I didn't recognize a single solitary letter, because there aren't any. Apparently they make their squiggles from right to left, too -- final proof (as if you needed any more) that the whole thing's a sham: They don't even know enough to do it in the right direction! That's a sure sign of an inherently illiterate people if I ever saw one. To a Christian, it's intuitively obvious that writing goes from left to right. How often do you pick up a book and unthinkingly try to read it from the right-hand side of the last page? Not so damn often, I suspect. You just know which way it goes. But still you persist in pretending that these inferior minds are "just as good" as yours. Your "reverse-racist" self-hatred is pathetic and you deserve compassion, but for some reason all I can summon up is contempt.
Maybe it's because of the fact that you're selling out your culture, your nation, and your God by siding with these primitive barbarians. Yeah, I guess that's it. Maybe I should have more patience with racist acts of high treason, maybe I should feel kindly disposed towards somebody who wants (in essence, never mind the details) to betray millions of Christian children into savagely brutal slavery at the hands of God-hating primitives, but I just don't. Go figure.
okay. I don't know if you're just REALLY good at trolling, or clueless about what a "sig line" is. A sig line has nothing to do with the rest of the post, and is often a quote from something.
In this case, it's a quote from Jack Handey's "Deep Thoughts".
Deep Thoughts are humor. Most of them take some completely ordinary statement and twist it to make no sense whatsoever.
They are not political statements. You were obviously just looking for some trigger to start your religious rant.
BTW, your logic is great. It boils down to "My sense of morals is right because any other one is wrong according to my sense of morals, and if you don't agree it's because you're stupid."
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
... They should check other evidence before making broad statements like that. Most of of other evidence (like from supernova standard candles experiment) points to expanding universe. (omega less than 1)
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Wasn't there some research recently with Cephid variable stars that indicated that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate?
The whole idea is kinda crazy, because what could possibly be causing the Universe to expand such a long time after the Big Bang.
Does anyone have any pointers to something on that?
Your post gives me an opportunity to ask a question that bothers me:
/. first!])
With all the universe present (latent?) at the initial singularity, why didn't it just remain the Mother of all Black Holes ?
I know that BHs can radiate away their mass, but I'm not aware that they do it catastropically. (Hmmm... maybe the Big Bang was actually a Big Dribble ? Could that solve some of the problems that the inflationary models have been trying to addresss? [If so, remember that you heard it on
Please give a rigorous answer, support your claims of fact, and prove your claims of inference. But keep it all simple enough for a 3rd grader to absorb. Thanx.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well, I'm just an afficianado of this stuff, so alls I got to add is what I read from Stephen Hawking (it's a bit cliche to quote him, but he really is a decent writer).
The idea that he outlined, and he seemed pretty uneasy about it of course, is that for virtual matter. I don't know who all worked on the idea, so I can't give credit where it's due, but I like it. It also happens to explain how black holes can lose mass.
The idea is that in a given bit of space, like the space between my two front teath maybe, there is a little bit of pressure exherted by mass that is constantly popping into and out of existence. A particle and an anti particle spontaniously form, like a standing wave, and spin back into each other and dissapear. In the black hole model, one of this pair gets eaten by the black hole while the other spins off into the rest of the universe, but only some of the time.
This seems nifty and tight, and wonderfully unevidenced at the moment.
Anyway, I hope this wasn't too redundant.
-- "So far, I have not found the science" -Soul Coughing
Blast 'em all to hell, I've heard all the stupid jokes I'm going to stand for, and suck.com just better, well, they just better watch out, is all.
OOOHHH, yeah, their days are NUMBERED.
You're a nutter...I hope you're joking. Actually, simply by using a computer, you are defying God. Alan Turing, who laid the foundations for all modern computing was (gasp...) gay. That's right. You're using a gay device to post your comments.
Please note that I'm an atheist who has nothing against gays. I'm just illustrating how stupid christian fundies are.
Welcome to the premiere issue of Flamebait Critique Weekly. This series of posts seeks to critique and satirize one selected piece of flamebait each week (or whatever other time period passes by before another particularly spectacular example appears). In this issue, we cover a piece by prolific flamebait writer A. Coward. This particular work seems to concern the values of one Christian zealot, when faced with a joke he (or she; A. Coward's gender is unclear at this point) does not seem to understand. Sadly, the piece is quite weak. Let us examine it further...
At first glance, it seems shocking: This person (and I use the term in a spirit of far greater generosity than it could possibly deserve) brags about practicing cannibalism.
Weak introduction. It doesn't quite mesh with the title, which has nothing to do with cannibalism. Are we reading a piece on liberals or cannbals? In addition, this entire paragraph consists of a single run-on sentence, with no thesis. I suggest heavy revision in the next draft.
But then when one really thinks about it, it's only natural. Those who reject God have, in so doing, rejected the only valid basis for morality in the world.
"It" is overused in the first sentence: twice adjacently. It hurts the flow. My suggestion is to replace the second "it" (which is in a contraction, a formal literary no-no) with "this is." It is wordier, but helps the flow of the piece.
The second sentence (which contains two unnecessary commas) is the first of several fallacies: it makes a statement without backing it up with any quotations or other pertinent data. Why have they rejected the only valid basis for morality? More to the point, why is this the only valid basis for morality? We have no data.
Also, between these two sentences, we have a change in tense from the present to the present perfect. This should be avoided in future revisions, or at least arranged such that tense is consistent within paragraphs.
They have become totally amoral - not immoral, but amoral. They are not even capable of conceiving of "right" and "wrong". "It's all relative!", they cry.
Pronouns without antecedents. Who are "they"? What is this "it" which "they" claim is "all relative"?
If there's no right and wrong, why not engage in cannibalism?
Grammatical error: it should be "if there are no right and wrong" or "is there is no right or wrong."
One need only take a brief look around the world at the barbaric behavior of those who practice anti-God "religions" (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Communism, etc.) to get a clear idea of where this increasingly atheistic nation is headed.
First, a factual error. Communism is not a religion, and has never so much as claimed to be. Quite the opposite, if the truth be known.
Also, "anti-God 'religions' " is an oxymoron, as it violates the definition of a religion as the worship of one or more dieties or other higher powers. Furthermore, in the case of polytheistic religions we have the question as to which god these religions stand against. Perhaps a more honest answer would be "non-Christian religions." This answer would also be more honest with the reader, as this is piece is clearly meant to be read as though written by a Christian zealot.
Just in case you're a little slow (Liberals usually have subnormal mentalities), here it is, in plain and unmistakable terms:
Stalin killed thirty or forty million people.
Stalin was an atheist.
You figure it out.
First, we have another run-on sentence. Second, we have inaccurate statistics: "thirty or forty million" should be replaced with a more accurate number. Third, there is a logical fallacy: the author sees a coincidence and assumes causality. How did the face that Stalin was an atheist cause him to kill "thirty or forty million" people? Could something else have caused this, such as Stalin's insanity? Without data to back this, we have no idea as to these propositions. Please provide more data in the future.
The only truly endangered species on Earth today is the Human Race.
"Human race" is not a proper noun, and not the first word of the sentence, and therefore capitalization is inappropriate.
The time has come to defend ourselves. We have not only morality but God Himself on our side.
Here, I begin to suspect plagiarism. This same statement has appeared on countless pieces of Ku Klux Klan literature. Similar statements have appeared on literature from the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Army of God, the Irish Republican Army, and other groups of religious zealots. Proper referencing is essential to good writing.
The poor dumb Liberals (atheists, Canadians, Buddhists, etc.) have nothing to sustain them but their own howling insanity and sick hate.
There should be a comma between "poor" and "dumb." "Liberals" should not be capitalized. Furthermore, the items in the list (which we can assume to be a list of "poor dumb Liberals") are mismatched: a philosophy, a nationality, and a religion. There is also no proof of insanity or hatred. For that matter, adverbial phrases are misused; insanity cannot howl, not can hatred become ill.
WE WILL PREVAIL.
Capitals are again used inappropriately. Boldface is appropriate, as it denotes emphasis. However, the quote is "We shall prevail" and again proper referencing is not used (in this case, to George Orwell's 1984.)
Millennium's Rating: 0.25 stars (out of 5).
Pros: No spelling errors whatsoever found by this reviewer.
Cons: Weak introduction, numerous grammatical errors, lack of data to back up assertions, misquoting of famous literature, and suspected plagiarism.
The Final Word: Not worth the read. Send it back for a few more revisions.
We should smash the Bourgeois exploitation with Communist revolution.
Officially, like all good God fearing Christians, I believe that Genesis 1 holds the truth to the beginning of the universe (kinda, _our_ universe, it actually leaves just as many unanswered questions as my theory does, but...)
:))
(btw - I call it the alpha theory not for religious reasons, but beacuse alpha means beginning, this, in essence would be a theory of the very beginning)
First, there was nothing, no energy, mo matter, no quantum laws, no relitivity, just nothing (actually, even nothing wouldn't exist
In this nothing there was an infinity amount of "energy". Not energy as we think of it, not even energy as in E = mc^2 energy, pure energy. Energy that is not from what exists, but from what dosen't exist.
A huge amount of this energy was made into this loop. A string of energy that was infinite. Since E=mc^2, there was also infinite mass (theoretically, however, it couldn't be comverted into mass until some physical laws were established) Then, there was an inbalance in the energy and the loop or energy exploded to form everything.
Once it exploded, most of the infinite energy was transferred into the explosion and kept the universe expanding (and still does) into the nothing it came from (note: since this energy obeys no physical laws, it can go faster then light, and very well might, noting that it might be gaining force be picking up the "energy" that it came from, or the "energy" might slow it down, or it might explode another universe that will halt the expanse of this one). Though most of the energy was involved in expanding the universe, some of it was `left behind' (probably the energy that exploded inward, instead of out). This energy `decided' what quantum laws would be, they were transformed into quarks/neutrinos/anything else I missed. Which, of course, are the buiding blocks of atoms, the building blocks of everything.
Along with this, I believe that the universe will keep expanding forever. It will never contract into one big (or small) singularity. The energy expanding the universe will always keep it expanding (though, theoritically, all the matter in the universe could contract into a singularity and reexplode, but, it wouldn't form a new universe, just refilling the same universe).
I also think in this explosion would have directed the universe primarily in two directions, and charged the opposit sides accordingly. Though the universe isn't actually of a disc type, it just naturally formed that way (except for a jet that would have exploded up and down relitive to the string of energy that started everything).
When everything is finished, we get a flat circle with two jets coming out of the center of the universe (like black hole with an accreation disk looks like to us). Also there are two sides,
neither of which would ever naturally meet, of the universe (one with matter, the other with antimatter). The jet at the middle going up and down would be neutral matter, or matter without a charge.
I may be totally wrong, or might be reinventing the wheel, but I did come up with it.
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Cannibuls.
Murphy's Law:
---------------------
If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.
Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives
---------------------------------------------
Anything that can go wrong, will.
- or -
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum.
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
Why do we always need a beginning, we have this inherited idea from the conception of human birth to death, that also that idea has to work on the wide scale universe. Why is it hard to comprehend that the universe had always existed forever, and will always, for infinite time.
This birth/death concept is too lowlevel and too closely tied to day to day life.
I am rich ass lawyer that cannot get enough $$$, and I alraedy own the patent to the universe, I invented the concept so everyone owes their existence to me.
Pay up! or the universe will close.
You have 30days
-Dr. Slick Willie Gates
Take the diameter of the known universe (slightly iffy) and the known mass of the universe (really iffy, but no matter). What is the schwartzchild radius for an object of that mass? It's beyond the radius of the known universe! (even if your mass estimate is is really low). We are all inside a black hole! And since there's no gravity inside of a hollow sphere, matter floats about freely in our universe regardless of how much dense matter is piled up on the event horizon "outside" as it falls inward. And that event horizon separates our universe from whatever meta-universe lies beyond. Only our gravity is felt outside. And since the universe is expanding, the meta black hole must be expanding. This implies that matter must be falling into out black hole universe. The expansion rate is just balanced by the matter falling inward, hence our universe is flat. And maybe the steady state theory was right. Where would this infalling matter from the meta-universe show up in our universe. There's no 'edge' in the spatial sense separating our universe from the outside. Every point in out universe is equidistant from the event horizon outside. So matter may indeed 'appear' evenly throughout space as it expands. Fascinating how old theories long thought dead can come back again. e.g., the rising re-belief in the aether... the omnipresent quantum foam that may act as the medium to transport light waves.
Our Sun is believed to be a second- or third-generation star. That is, it emerged from Supernovae debris, and said Supernovae could in turn emerge from yet older Supernovae debris.
That is why we have such relatively high percentage of trans-Fe elements in our part of the Universe.
To the topic: I'm really disappointed. Omega=1 means heat death, while Omega>1 could mean there will be yet another BigBang after the BigCrunch.
Please moderate this post down for your protection.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
The point of the study is simply going to reveal that they have finally stumbled upon a method of examining the exact same stuff as they were before, but with a dimension tossed out of the mix like a three-dimentional plot represented on a flat x-y coordinate graph, or a cross-section of the same. If you're trying to look at where things go when they don't exist, this is the way to go about it when you can't guess acurrately. Simply put, in boring calculus texts (umm... okay) when you had a complex formula to break down to uncover the exact values and/or ranges of the variables, the first thing you had to have was a few KNOWN values. One angle one side length are sufficient to isolate ALL the angles and lengths on some triangles. (I hope aliens aren't making me type this. I've been looking at a lot of pictures of crop circles lately.) This will provide a similar tool to actually attempting to TEST the formulas theorized about in sub-atomic physics. Remember the little story a week or so ago about the theory of dinky little universes everywhere. This is the kind of technology you use to TEST that kind of theory. ...at least unlike the atomic bomb, we won't have to make a tiny portion of the planet uninhabitable to do those tests. Fnord.
The connection I need help with is what the article said about that wacky theory according to which empty space has a repulsive force on matter, forcing physical objects to accelerate apart from one another. I know what the evidence for the theory is (it's telescope observations a certain pattern of red shifts), I just don't see how the flatness of the universe makes this suggestion any more credible. I'm with Stephen Hawking on this one. He says that if you have to pick between a universal constant being incredibly close to zero and really being zero, our bet should be on zero. It's just more elegant. This is what I think of the proposed cosmological constant--but I'm willing to change my mind if the evidence rolls in. So is this evidence that should change my mind?
Earlier this year, researchers discovered that a stream of photons can be slowed if passed through a dense concentration of Bose-Einstein condensate (5th form of matter, discovered in '94). In these experiments, they were able to slow the light particles to an extremely low 37 mph. So much for a constant speed of light. Reinstatement of a cosmological constant to explain the possible acceleration of the universe is very controversial. An accelerating model of universal expansion is something that doesn't sit well with a lot of physicists. I was a personal fan of the oscillating theory of the Universe (bang -> crunch -> bang -> crunch...), and this destroys that theory. Oh well... in this field, every six months, you have to be prepared to throw out all that you believe is true. Entropy will get us in the end, but at least it's toasty warm now.
Look, I'm sure you put quite a bit of thought into your theory, but if you really are interested in cosmology read a proper textbook on it. The misunderstandings your post displays make it clear you haven't done that. Oh, and if you're worried because of your "god-fearingness", don't; you always have the option (once you come to a more sensible opinion about the big bang) to say that God caused it all. That would be considerably less loony than what you've got now, unless, of course, you were just kidding, in which case I apologize. AC
You're right in that a repulsive "cosmological constant" force greater than gravitational attraction - if lambda does indeed have such a value - would force the universe open.
IIRC the term "flat" was used to describe a universe with a time evolution that was neither open nor closed. You seem to be implying that the term "flat" actually refers to spatial geometry rather than spacetime geometry, and that the correlation of this word with such neither-open-nor-closed universes only applies if lambda=0.
If so, then what is the recommended terminology for a universe of indeterminate lambda which is neither open nor closed?
Where in the hell does the Cosmological Constant come from?
I think I read somewhere that it's the pressure created by the energy of the vacuum; sounds like those virtual particles are forcing space apart in a manner not too unlike the original primordial seed.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
So if the universe is flat... and suppose that there are other flat universes...would this mean that we *are* on the disk worlds :-)
Does it really matter what the dimensions of the universe are? Why does it really matter if its flat, round or even square? As of now ...no human can travel beyond the moon! It just seems to me that if we really want to find out how the universe works, and if its flat or not. We should figure out a fast, and effeicent way to travel across it. Columbus didn't measure the waves and currents to long before he realized that he had to sail across the ocean to find out for sure that the earth was round. Yeah some of you might say that I watch to much T.V., and that real science just doesn't work that way. Its just that as humans we never really know what's going on until we do it, experience it, until we can touch it with our own hands. I don't think from our perspective the universe is any different. I don't think its enough to examine cosmic microwaves because if we continue to do only that then the only thing we will ever really know about the universe is that its flat. So my question is why is there no news about theories for new propulsion systems and things like that? I know things like that take time but does anyone know of a group of scientist who are atleast trying?
Why does anything exist at all?
I'm by no means an expert on this, but I thought quantum mechanics required the universe to be flat.
I'm pre-coffee this morning, but I thought one of the effects of QED was a quantum explanation of radiation pressure involving sending a wave of some variety (again, pre coffee, I think it was an electromagnetic wave? maybe not... because I'm not sure that makes sense) when an electron gains energy, both forward in time, as well as backwards in time that propogate throughout the universe. At some point they impact another electron (or other particle), which inturn reemit the same sort of radiation half of which propogates back towards the original electron (half in terms of time, not direction). The vast majority of the radiation ends up cancelling each other out, but a small amount ends up "reflecting" back to the original electron and providing that resistance? If the universe was open, there wouldn't be enough advanced waves returning to balance things out (unless our understanding of the origins were incorrect, because you can't be open in one direction in time and closed in the other and still have things balance out), and if the universe was closed, there would be too many advanced waves returning and we wouldn't get the results we get.
If I recall correctly, it was some work that Richard Feynmann did early on in his life that involved that.
This one popped into my head a few minutes ago, just a thought experiment on why the universe would have to be flat.
If you accept the multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then every possible state of the universe exists (flat, closed, open, following every possible occurance throughout time).
Assuming that we need a stable version of the universe where things occur in ways that match the observations of classical physics (special relativity, general relativity, thermodynamics, etc), then we suddenly have a defined number of states the universe must exist in where random quantum occurances don't violate thise rules to a significant enough extent to keep the physical processes we need to live from occurring. (Blending the Copenhagen and multi-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I'm suggesting that the requirements for our conciousness to exist and thus be able to ponder the question forces the full range of possible universes represented by the wave function of the universe in general to collapse into discrete universes in which we're able to exist, one of which involves every instant we perceive passing through).
If it turned out that the physical results of the radiation pressure I mentioned in my other post are inherantly needed for the proper functioning of our brain in being concious as we are, than those requirements as parameters to our conciousness cause the wave function of the universe to collapse not into discrete universes (ala the multi-worlds hypothesis) where the universe could be open or closed, but in fact our existance would force the universe we're concious of to drop into a stable state where its flat.
Reversing that, basically I'm saying that if it turned out that the universe as we know it can't exist in a form that can support our form of conciousness without the specific form of radiation pressure we measure, and that pressure requires a flat universe because of the results of quantum electrodynamics, then our existance is either proof of the universe being flat, or the cause of the universe being flat, depending on how you want to look at it.
Ugh, that just hurt my brain. Gotta love quantum physics.
1) Inflation theory does not contradict the round universe theory, it just makes it more annoying.
2) To the inflation theory I must say BAH! and that is a very deep throated ba wich comes from the very center of my being.
Just because Matter is going outward in all directions does NOT MEAN the universe is expanding.
I say that the universe is infinite, and that infinity is a highly probable state of anything, via unlogic (Dont go to unlogic.html right now because recent realizations and rephrasings have not yet made it to the web).
Matter May in some way "Create" dimensions, including time, but I, as are many others, am unsure. It is possible that the Universe is Infinite, And that matter within is flying out in all directions from the center (Yes, Infinite Distance can have a center, It just doesnt meet up with many of the requirements that we come to expect a center to have.)
But one thing I've always disliked about the round universe Idea, is that whenever people find that something is infinite (And therefore not technically having a center) they tend to say it loops around.
The worst example is Time, Wich has a near-absolute beginning point, And a not-all-too definate line wich twists into (Unless something undesirable happens) infinity.
For millenia, and still I find, today, people believe[d] that time is a loop.
And even the sign for infinity is, if you havent noticed, A closed loop.
Until we learn to accept Infinity as Infinity, we will not be masters of the universe.
And even then it will take some doing.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
>To make such statements is all meaningless philosophical speculation of course.
>You simply can't describe the nature of existence and reality in conventional
>human terms. It only make sense when you look at it from a quantum theory
>standpoint.
Yeah, but the quantum gravity thing and a TOE or GUT are as yet unverifiable speculation. And many GUT theorists have said that a GUT will only result in more questions. Anything to avoid even the slightest hint of a deity, or that something "beyond" the physical/mathematical might exist, right?
Pardon me for being agnostic (rather than atheist), and allow me to quote physicist John Polkinghorne (who later became an Anglican priest!) from his book "Belief in God in an Age of Science"...
"Moving up on the scale of bold speculation, one might evoke notions of quantum cosmology which suggest that universes of various kinds are continually appearing as a physical process called inflation blows up microworlds, which have bubbled up as quantum fluctuations in some universal substrate. Proponents of this point of view are sometimes moved to describe our anthropic universe as a 'free lunch'. The phrase itself should trigger a cautious evaluation of the offer being made. The cost of this particular cosmic meal is the provision that just the right quantum fields fluctuate in order to produce first inflation and then the necessary observed forces of nature. But this does NOT really remove anthropic particularity, for the basic physical laws still have to take certain specific forms which are the necessary foundation for the proposed quantum cosmology.
"Beyond this point, speculation [on the part of atheists] becomes rapidly desperate [and as much so as any theistic arguments]. Maybe the laws of nature themselves fluctuate, so that a vast portfolio of conceivable (or, to us, inconceivable) worlds rise and fall in the relentless explosion of random possibility -- with occasional patches of transient order in a sea of seething chaos. We [as atheists] have moved far beyond anything that could be called scientific in this exercise of prodigal conjecture. It is time to consider Leslie's other alternative: that there is a divine purpose behind this fruitful universe."
-- John Polkinghorne, "Belief in God in an Age of Science"
(c)1998 Yale University
ISBN 0-300-07294-5
I dont know much about physics, even though I've got a theory on the universe, but I think I read somewhere that the Cosmological Constant was something Al E threw in to allow for the presence of aether(..sp?) to work out. Because we all accept the absence of aether.. I think, now, The Cosmological Constant is unneccessary.
I was going to post to the message before this but now that I'm here I'll just go on: If An Infinite Ammount of Energy was released durring the 'Big Bang' then That would account for the throwing out of matter not slowing down, And the idea that the dimensional universe hadnt formed yet would account for the lack of infinite speeds.
Ok, so that's Bull, but It may be correct and so nya. Ignore that, really, I was rambling.
But really, my take on it is that Matter was thrown in all directions durring the big bang, including time. The reason it hasnt seemed to slow down any is because we're travelling through time slower, too. Ta,da.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Feminists universally hate men. I am not going to believe anything they say.
Or are you really that deluded?
Don't believe the propaganda. Most of the women I know are feminists, including my wife. They don't hate men. They think that they should have the same rights as men under the law. If you call that "hate", you're mentally ill.
90% of what was called "radical feminism" in 1960 is now called "common sense". It's been so completely accepted as the norm that people don't even realize how much has changed. Read old stuff from the 1950's and look at the attitudes about women that people had back then. It's just plain weird! It's like watching a very strange cartoon. Feminism is just common sense, that's all.
Yeah, there are radical lesbian separatists out there, but they're a tiny minority of feminists and they always were. They represent feminism the same way the Williams brothers (who shot the gays in California) represent Christians: Not at all. There's a nut in every crowd.
Yeah, that's the one
I like him, he's funny.
Dammit, I don't remember where, but while St. Paul certainly said what you say he said, he did indeed at some point mention that gays should still be stomped . . .
IMHO he was a prick in a lot of ways. He didn't much like women, either.
no they don't!!
Mis-correcting americans will not help them better themselves. See the numerous other posts explaining what "flat" in this context means.
The sign for infinity is a closed loop because you can trace it out with your finger an infinite number of times, not because people think it loops...
The speed of light is constant. When light seems to travel 37 mph through a medium, it's because the light bounces around like mad within that medium, traveling an enormous distance back and forth between various molecules and such, then finally emerges from the medium as though it had passed straight through at a speed of 37 mph. It was actually moving at 299,792 km/s the entire time.
S P O R K O P s O R o K s o P O R K
Whoopdy doo Bazzle! What does it all mean?!
You learned this at one poin in time too..... so why don't you let him shithead.....
The cosmological constant doesn't really have much to do with the aether. When Einstein came to writing down his field equations he wanted to write down the most general purpose equation he could that was simple and connected the variables he thought was involved in gravity. As a result he couldn't rule out the cosmological constant term because it's simple and connects these variables in a way that respects the symmetries one expects. There's no way to rule this term out a priori so Einstein had to leave it in.
-- SIGFPE
Weak introduction. It doesn't quite mesh with the title, which has nothing to do with cannibalism. Are we reading a piece on liberals or cannbals?
The thesis of the piece is that they are one and the same. I'll grant that the logic is not so strong, but that's the whole point, isn't it? The only reason I bother writing trolls is the joy of playing with bad logic. This may seem odd to you, but it's the same phenomenon as the French eating moldy cheese that smells like socks -- or hard-core record collectors enjoying audience-tape bootlegs and rehearsal tapes. A "noble rot", you might say.
. . . this entire paragraph consists of a single run-on sentence, with no thesis.
Run-on, my ass. As for the thesis thing, that sentence introduces the premise underlying the whole essay.
But then when one really thinks about it, it's only natural. Those who reject God have, in so doing, rejected the only valid basis for morality in the world.
"It" is overused in the first sentence: twice adjacently. It hurts the flow.
Point well taken. However, it does the flow far less harm than "but then when one", a phrase which is genuinely terrible. "But when you" would have been much better; "you" for "one" is acceptable in this context. "But when we really think about it" would have been best because it avoids the "you"/"one" problem. "One" is fine if you're in the MLA, but it's stilted as hell and should be avoided when possible (except in satires on the English upper classes
Those who reject God have, in so doing, rejected . .
The second sentence (which contains two unnecessary commas)
The commas help clarify what's being said. They also help keep the pace under control. The import of the sentence is well-served by a stentorian tone.
If there's no right and wrong, why not engage in cannibalism?
Grammatical error: it should be "if there are no right and wrong" or "is there is no right or wrong."
That's debatable, though I tend to agree with you. I was probably thinking of "right and wrong" as a unit:
"if (! (right && wrong))", if you know C.
Of course, C's not English. On the other hand, which one flows best? This is not a formal essay, and I'm not gonna fire it off to the New Yorker. Colloquial usage is acceptable in the appropriate context (which Ross or White would be the first to tell you, by the way). Was this context appropriate? IMHO yes, but this is also debatable.
. . . a factual error.
What?! A factual error in a troll?! Good heavens, what is the world coming to!
Erm, of course it's a factual error. That's the point.
"anti-God 'religions' " is an oxymoron . .
That's true. It's also one that right-wing Christian zealots use from time to time. If I'm writing in that "voice", it's not unreasonable for me to say things that those people say. Get it? What I was doing was trying to capture the RWCZ worldview, which is essentially "magical" and very provincial. Their beliefs are unsupported by proof, so they assume that this is true of everyone else. If every opinion is a religion, and atheism (or science, or what have you) is an opinion which doesn't assert the existence of God, then atheism (or whatever) is by definition an "anti-God religion". It takes a lot of misinformation and bad logic to get there, but it's their bad logic, not mine. I don't invent this stuff, I satirize it as I see it. Okay?
inaccurate statistics. . . a logical fallacy: the author sees a coincidence and assumes causality
Yes, yes! You're getting warm, very warm! You've almost figured it out! Now all you have to do is grasp the fact that the piece was a satire on people who join logical fallacies to innaccurate statistics, and thereby reach insane conclusions.
Are you really as humorless and literal-minded as you seem to be?
Communism is not a religion, and has never so much as claimed to be. Quite the opposite, if the truth be known.
Communism looks and quacks like a religion. I'm not the first one to notice this. It's a belief system which demands blind acceptance of certain unprovable assumptions, and which places faith in mysterious and intangible forces ("historical inevitability", etc.) It's evangelical, too. And if you read about the "conversion experiences" of Communists, they uncannily resemble those of converted members of conventional religions. Communism provides meaning and structure to people's lives.
Furthermore, it's not uncommon for loony right-wing Christians to describe all points of view as "religions". For example, they frequently claim that the theory of evolution is a "religion", because they refuse to recognize that there's any evidence to back it up.
Finally, it really doesn't matter that Communists claim not to be practicing a religion. The PRC does claim to be a "People's Republic". La di dah. The guy playing three-card Monte on the sidewalk claims to be honest. Lots of people describe themselves and their organizations in a lot of ways, and much of it is crap.
The time has come to defend ourselves. We have not only morality but God Himself on our side.
Here, I begin to suspect plagiarism. This same statement has appeared on countless pieces of Ku Klux Klan literature
Uh, yeah, that's why I threw it in. The problem with your "plagiarism" thing is that while the sentiment has appeared countless times, that in and of itself is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is verbatim copying, for one thing, and for another thing, conventionalized sentiment is in the public domain.
. . . the Irish Republican Army, and other groups of religious zealots
Get your facts straight. The IRA is not, and never has been, about religious zealotry. It's a notably violent irredentist movement. They're interested in political self-determination, not prayer. They can pray all they like these days. Catholicism was legalized in Ireland in the nineteenth century. It's an historical accident that the native Irish in the Six Counties happen to have a different religion from the Scots and English who run the place. The war is not about religion, it's about national liberation on the one side and a depressingly unprofitable and pointless exercise in colonialism on the other side. Ethnic issues come into it, of course, but that's not religion.
The same, by the way, is true of Hamas and Hezbullah, except that they make more noise about religion. Mainly they want their land, and they want Israel's land, too. A couple of the Palestinian liberation groups are Christian -- the PDLF, IIRC, is an example.
Proper referencing is essential to good writing.
It's essential to getting a passing grade on a term paper. The presence or absence of footnotes is irrelevant to the quality of the prose.
WE WILL PREVAIL.
Capitals are again used inappropriately. Boldface is appropriate, as it denotes emphasis.
And the caps are appropriate, because they denotes even more emphasis.
However, the quote is "We shall prevail"
What?! Look, you've really lost it here. I said something that George Orwell didn't say, and then you accuse me of plagiarizing George Orwell -- and take me to task for not saying what he said! Well, gee, no kidding. It's different because I wasn't quoting him, don't you know. Subtle point, that. As luck would have it, I was quoting General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, and I got it right. Go sue Kubrick for plagiarism, if it means that much to you.
Furthermore, "we will prevail" is like "you've got mail". You can't copyright three ordinary words expressing an ordinary idea. There's nothing unique there. One might just as well copyright "Looks like rain, don't it?" and initiate a suit against the entire population of the United States.
The poor dumb Liberals (atheists, Canadians, Buddhists, etc.) have nothing to sustain them but their own howling insanity and sick hate.
There should be a comma between "poor" and "dumb."
It's not necessary and it impedes the flow. In colloquial American English that phrase is fine just as it stands.
"Liberals" should not be capitalized.
In a piece alleged to be written by a right-wing religious zealot, the capitalization makes perfect sense. They do that. They treat "the Liberals" as if they were an organized and homogeneous group. They talk about "Secular Humanists" the same way. See the writings of Paul Weyrich if you doubt me.
the items in the list (which we can assume to be a list of "poor dumb Liberals") are mismatched: a philosophy, a nationality, and a religion.
Yes, this is an obscure literary technique called "humor". At least you succeeded in decoding the antecedent properly.
There is also no proof of insanity or hatred.
Correct. See above about bad logic, humor, and right-wing religious zealots. In a satire which depends for its humor on of bad logic and factual error, you unerringly demand removal of the only elements which make the thing work. To do as you ask would gut the piece completely. It would become a boring position paper rather than a funny screed.
For that matter, adverbial phrases are misused; insanity cannot howl, not can hatred become ill.
"Howling insanity" denotes a variety of insanity which entails howling. It's colorful and hyperbolic. I like it.
"Sick hate" denotes a variety of hate which is a sickness. It's also used from time to time by right-wing Christian zealots.
There are no adverbs there. "Howling" is an adjective in that context, and "sick" is an adjective every day of the week. Good GOD, I used adjectives to modify nouns -- what was I thinking?!
Look, I appreciate what you're doing and I hope that you'll continue with it, but you've got to realize that you're beating a butterfly with a rock here. My whole piece was nothing but a display-case for amusingly bizarre errors of fact and logic. To take issue with the errors because they are errors is to miss the point entirely. If they'd made any sense, I wouldn't have used them. And the prose? If you're not writing legal documents or formal essays, flow and clarity come first. You'd do well to expose yourself to the acknowledged masters of prose in the American language. Gents like Nabokov, E. B. White, James Thurber, H. L. Mencken, A. J. Liebling, and John McPhee[1] have a lot to teach us about flow and clarity. I can see you applying your ponderous and humorless red pen to any one of those writers, and it's enough to make a man cry. Lose the arbitrary and rigid "rules" about "correctness": If it works, it works. Writing is not a science, it's an art, like programming, engineering, or music.
-------------------------------------------
[1] I don't claim to be operating on their level, by the way.
No spelling errors whatsoever found by this reviewer.
Of course not. By the way, that's better than you did -- there's a "not" for "nor" in there somewhere, and a "face" for "fact" when you discuss Stalin. Please consider proofreading in the future. Really. It's very bad form to lash out at somebody's writing if your own writing is a mess. Hell, you need to work on your writing in general. It's pedantic and sluggish.
numerous grammatical errors,
Sorry, but this is just bullshit. You picked nits in a couple of places, but the "errors" are debatable at best.
misquoting of famous literature,
As I mentioned, this assertion leads me to suspect you of congenital idiocy as well as a deplorable ignorance of the films of Stanley Kubrick.
lack of data to back up assertions
Again, that's the whole point.
Reading your little "summation" again, I'm starting to get annoyed. You are a remarkably arrogant for somebody so deeply lacking in humor and so impervious to the English language.
keep up the amusing reviews Millenium!
Two murderers are in prison, and you chalk this up to persecution of Christians?
I suggest you actually start studying Christianity as it was preached by Jesus, as opposed to the hate-filled legacy we have today. A good starting place would be John 8( Here is a copy online so you don't have to dig your Bible out from under the "Focus on the Family" propoganda sheets.)
Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Christian. Never afraid of persecution, just ashamed of the image many "Christians" have earned.
Fine...your troll worked.
Let's take a look at some typical feminist quotes
Why are over half of your "typical feminist quotes" from the same person? Are there only 3 "typical feminists" in the country.
Oh, and I can play your game too:
"It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous--because
genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea, 1977
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. To be honest, I have no idea who Andrea Dworkin is, but it took me all of five minutes to find something supporting a view I hold. Hell, I could probably quote Phyllis Shlafly in order to support my view.
I hope this sheds some light on the folly of using out of context quotes to support your view.
--GnrcMan--
My background is in math but I do have a course in GR under my belt...
Isn't the cosmological constant just a constant of integration? In a logical sense it doesn't need any explanation - you integrate and you have a constant left over whose value has to be measured!
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
while (true) { printf("Ransom....\r\n"); sleep(30); } (apologies to C.S.Lewis - it just seemed appropriate)
The force that causes the universe to expand actually forces you outwards when you're at the edge of the universe. If you go too far, you indeed cannot get back, and in effect you do fall off.
Of course, by the time you get there you have another, more serious problem. The electro-gravito-magnetic forces don't behave the same way there. Matter there exists in essentially a cosmic soup. Electrons are no longer attracted to protons, nor are they repelled by other electrons. Similarly the repulsive force between protons disappears.
Also, from the extreme edges of the universe, light cannot travel back towards the middle. Like somebody falling into a black hole, an observer seeing somebody fall off the edge of the universe will see time appearing to slow down for the victim.
Most of your quotes are from Andrea Dworkin, who is a nut. A couple are from Valerie Solanis, who was a nut and an attempted murderer. These are not "typical" feminists, they're crazy people.
If these quotes were "typical", you wouldn't have had to rely so overwhelmingly on Dworkin. You could have found dozens of writers who say things like that.
And the Gertrude Stein quote is no worse than what a lot of mainstream male writers (e.g. H. L. Mencken, James Thurber) have said about women. Men and women have never understood each other terribly well, and there's always been some sniping back and forth. Making fun of somebody is not a death threat. Male comedians say stuff like that all the time on TV, and female comedians say similar things. Nobody takes it very seriously, because it's not serious. Get a sense of humor. The rest of us can laugh at ourselves. What's your problem?
The "feminist bible" is the quotes and statistics that I have posted. There is nothing about equal rights, but hatred of men.
YOUR bible says not to bear false witness against your neighbor. Think about that. Then face the fact that YOU are not in any position to dictate to feminists what their "bible" should be. You're just yammering. On whose authority do you make this claim? Based on what consensus? You're lying and you know it. It's disgusting, but your God will take care of you when the time comes.
You say not to believe the propaganda, but why shouldn't I believe that someone who calls for the execution of men.
The propaganda says that Dworkin is the norm. She isn't. If you had any familiarity with feminism other than the propaganda you've been fed, then you'd have a more balanced picture and you'd be able to put Dworkin in perspective.
There are a lot of "Christians" who call for the execution of all sorts of people. If my only exposure to "Christianity" were through a carefully selected set of quotes from the KKK and Christian Identity, I'd reach the same conclusions about Christians that you've reached about feminism. Fortunately for real Christians, the normal ones get a lot of exposure and nobody mistakes the fringe lunatics for the norm.
Women earn 50%/70%/74%/82%/insert some other percentage here. FALSE. Men work 400 hours more per year than women. When equalized for that and profession women make the same as men.
The 400 hours thing is meaningless without context.
In this day and age, after thirty years of feminist activism and some legislation, most women in the USA are earning the same pay as men when they do the same job.
On the other hand, I used to work at a company where women were generally offered smaller salaries and given smaller raises than men. There were exceptions, but that was a frequent occurrence. Nobody bothered doing anything about it, and they ultimately went bankrupt because that was not the only way in which the place was mismanaged. It was a mess. In this day and age, the only companies dumb enough to behave like that are the ones that are too dumb to survive anyway.
I am not going to let feminists take away my rights, toture me, and then kill me.
See? You are insane. Even in the Dworkin quotes above, nothing is said about "torture". You made that up to justify your own blind hatred of feminism.
If your wife calls herself a feminist, then either she doesn't understand what feminism really is or she is planning to divorce you take away your income and children.
No, she understands very well what feminism is all about: Common sense, basically. And no, she's not plotting against me. Get a grip, for Christ's sake. Please. Even if we do divorce, she'd never bother suing for alimony anyway, because she earns a respectable salary already. Alimony is a fossil left over from a time when women rarely were able to support themselves by honest means. Back then, getting married meant becoming an unpaid maid, and alimony was unemployment insurance. That's history. Get over it.
You're an idiot in general. You're throwing endless Andrea Dworkin quotes at me (who the hell cares? Did I marry Andrea Dworkin? No, I've never even met her!), and I'm talking about real life experience with real life people on planet Earth. When you've got empirical data to go by, why bother looking something up in the book? The book, at best, won't tell you anything you don't know -- and it may very well tell you something entirely nonsensical. Exhibit A: You. Have a nice day, and have fun hiding under the bed. You're pathetic and deluded, which is its own punishment.
There are only so many feminist leaders.
More than three, you idiot.
What is the context of slanderous statements like "all men are rapists"?
What is the context of your slanderous statements to the effect that all feminists are calling for the extermination of men? Well? I'm waiting, you dismal moron.
I mean, if you're not going to take God's Word for it, who can you really trust?
:)
Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Christian. Never afraid of persecution, just ashamed of the image many "Christians" have earned.
Speaking as an atheist liberal, I'm quite aware that most Christians are normal, reasonable people, and I do make the distinction when I'm ranting about the nutty ones. It's not fair for you to take the rap for those clowns.
At least you guys don't have to put up with Andrea Dworkin
I am not you, and I doubt that many other people are either.
Damn, I like that line.
You seem just like the slave owners of the early Americas, emphasizing "slaves be obedient to your masters" and ignoring the teachings of compassion and forgiveness as they whipped and beat their slaves.
At work (damn, damn) I have a link to an essay on the web about Christian views about slavery in the old South. Come back tomorrow morning (monday 11/29) and I'll try to remember to post it.
Apparently there was denial, and there was guilt, and a lot of other things. There was an Old Testament-derived notion of the hierarchical ordering of the "household", which justified slavery: One's wife and children weren't free agents, either. Beating etc. for the sake of discipline are entirely frowned upon in the Old Testament. Ultimately, the attempted theological justifications of the "peculiar institution" didn't last. Anyhow, the views of Southerners at the time were far more varied and nuanced than you might think (as were the views of Northerners, which were often nothing for us now to be proud of). The net result was evil, of course. I'm not denying that, but how they got there is interesting. I think that we in the North (I don't know if I speak for you in that respect, of course) often tend to have an overly simplistic view of the South. They probably return the favor, I'm sure, though AFAIK the mass media tend to be Northern (barring CNN) so they're probably better informed about us than we are about them.
Simplifying things to a two-body Newtonian universe (so that we have a hope of understanding the equations -- IANAP) the question is analogous to the problem of determining escape velocity and the motion of a body travelling at escape velocity. The differential equation in question is x''=-K/(x^2), where x is the distance as a function of time. This has a family of solutions of the form x=A (t-B)^(2/3) where A is a constant determined by K and B is an arbitrary parameter.
It actually has a stack of other solutions (2nd order DE implies a two-parameter family of solutions) but we only expect a one-parameter family to have the boundary condition "x' approaches 0 as t approaches infinity". Indeed, you could make the other parameter equal to the asymptotic velocity/kinetic energy/etc, which the above family of solutions has equal to 0. So with this solution, you will note that x approaches infinity and x' approaches 0 as t approaches infinity.
From a physicist's perspective, think of the balance of potential and kinetic energy, with the total energy of the system being zero. You want kinetic energy to converge to zero (from the positive side), so potential energy must converge to zero (from the negative side) and so the distance has to converge to infinity. This also applies to the relativistic version, which the simplified analysis above only approximates.
I hope this clears things up! 8-7
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
... see my earlier response (which may appear below this one) with "differential equations" in the subject
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
nah - it would spit them back. The other side of the universe has no more use for them than we do. We would have to hack up our own open source wormhole drivers for this task.
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
A better analogy than the inflating ballon, is an oven in which you cook a cake: the cake's volume is growing, and still parts of the cake are moving apart.
It is a much better analogy because it's 3D, the only "catchy" point is that in reality we are in the cake and there is no oven, no "outside" of the cake.
I have won then since you have no more logical arguements.
The fact that you are wrong is not dependent on the debating tactics those who disagree with you.
You obviously defend the statement "all men are rapists"
That's insane. Nowhere did I say anything even remotely like that. I said that the people who do say that are wrong, that they are a small and irrelevant minority of feminists, and that that statement does not reflect the beliefs of feminists in general, nor the nature of feminism itself. My point is that you insist on quoting only the lunatic fringe, while neglecting entirely to include the mainstream.
The same logic could be used to indict Alan Keyes or George W. Bush as Klansmen. After all, David Duke at one point called himself a Republican, right? This is a matter of public record. But it would be idiotic to make any soup out of that oyster because Keyes and Bush are not in the Klan. Get it?
I have shown that feminists are calling for the extermination of men so what I said is true so it can't be slanderous.
To call Keyes or Bush sympathetic to the Klan (much less members of the Klan) would be slanderous. The fact that there are Klansmen in the Republican Party is irrelevant, because the views of the vast majority of Republicans do not reflect the views of the Klan on most topics. It's true that most (if not all) Republicans are opposed to welfare, and that the Klan is also so opposed. So what? The rest of what the Klan believes is nutty.
As I've demonstrated at great length, you are taking a few quotes from the lunatic fring and claiming that the mainstream agrees with them. You offer no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. You want to talk about slander? Go right ahead.
Oh, yeah, there is one big and very important difference between nutty extremist feminists and nutty extremist Christians and Klansmen: The nutty extremist feminists have never, ever killed anybody. Valerie Solanis shot Andy Warhol, but he lived, and that's about it. Other than that, they've got a clean record. The nutty extremist Christians and Klansmen, however, have turned violent on a fairly regular basis and they've racked up quite a body count over the years.
Quite honestly, I don't really care whether I convince you or not. You're a fringe lunatic yourself, and in the United States, fringe lunatics like you and Andrea Dworkin are politically irrelevant. The majority in this country is fairly calm and rational. Jefferson was right. The only person suffering from your delusional worldview is you yourself (well, if you're married, your wife may well suffering from it as well, and if you have any daughters I'll be praying for them
Making fun of somebody is not a death threat.
No a death threat is a death threat.
I stated very clearly that I was referring to the Gertrude Stein quote. That quote is not a death threat. It is "making fun". It is a witty remark. Gertrude Stein made a lot of witty remarks. She was a witty person. She never threatened to kill anybody, least of all "men in general". She was a close friend of Ernest Hemingway for years, for Christ's sake, and she never wanted to kill him. Among Hemingway's friends, this is really a distinction of sorts
If I was in a position to dictate what their "bible" should be, then I would leave out all of the man hating.
You have, on your own nonexistent authority, picked some arbitrary quotes from a non-representative selection of self-described "feminists" (and Gertrude Stein, who died before the term was coined), and declared this to be the "bible of feminism". You have made no attempt to justify this claim. I don't blame you for refusing to justify it, because you can't. It's ludicrous.
I am only making observations.
No, you're also drawing conclusions. The problem is that you're observing Andrea Dworkin and then drawing conclusions about, for example, my wife, who is aware that Andrea Dworkin is a lunatic. By the way, I showed her your posts. She got a good laugh out of them.
You're a slanderer and a man hater, and you know it.
That's just plain pathetic. I have stated my conviction that men and women should be equal before the law, and I have expressed support for other people who believe that. I have also explicitly and repeatedly condemned the views of Andrea Dworkin, the only bona-fide "man-hater" who's come up in this discussion.
If that signifies to you as "man-hating", then I'd like to suggest that you take a quick refresher course in the English language, and another in logic.
See? You are insane.
This statement is slanderous. I am not insane.
Actually, your monomaniacal denial of reality WRT feminism looks a great deal like insanity.
I could have you sued for saying this since it violates my state's slander law.
. . .
You're an idiot in general.
Again slanderous and actionable in court.
Yeah, right. When all else fails, threaten frivolous litigation. Typical loser. In any case, learn some law before you spout off. Neither of those statements qualifies as "slander" under the law. The legal system in this country does not exist to provide crazy people with a weapon of vengeance against people who see them for what they are.
Even in the Dworkin quotes above, nothing is said about "torture". You made that up to justify your own blind hatred of feminism.
What does "society to cut up men" mean to you?
Read the SCUM Manifesto. It's on the web somewhere. It's irrational, but funny. Valerie Solanis was a clever and intelligent person, though unfortunately she was also insane and it's for the best that she ended up behind bars. "Cut up" doesn't seem to have been intended in the literal sense of "lacerat with a sharp object", but even if it had been, that still doesn't signify torture. Sure, killing people is quite bad enough, but you are making a specific accusation which is, very definitely, dead wrong. Acronymically, the "Society to Cut Up Men" spells "SCUM", which probably had more to do with the creation of the name than anything else.
Sure Dworkin just wants to kill all men and be done with it.
SCUM wasn't Dworkin, it was Valerie Solanis. Get your facts straight.
This proves that you have no real arguement since your entire arguement is that I am insane so you are always right.
Well, if you'd understood my post, you'd have grasped the fact that my argument is based on your numerous errors of fact and logic. From those errors, I drew the conclusion that you are "insane" and an "idiot". With your latest blast of gibberish here, you have reinforced that conviction.
In this day and age, after thirty years of feminist activism and some legislation, most women in the USA are earning the same pay as men when they do the same job.
So why are you defending people who say that the pay between men and women isn't equal?
My point is that the inequality used to be very common, and that one of the goals of feminism in the sixties and seventies was to change that. For the most part, they succeeded, although I did give an example of a workplace where the change hasn't taken effect.
I am not hiding under the bed, pathetic, or deluded
You are obsessively fearful of a threat which exists only in your imagination. This is called a "delusion". "Pathetic" is the word, my friend. "Hiding under the bed" is basically what you're doing.
By the way, you should know that if you respond with a flat denial to colorful rhetoric like "hiding under the bed", you're basically making a fool of yourself. It would seem that you consider "hiding under the bed" a realistic option, to the extent that it's worthy of a denial.
Given that the universe is currently expanding,
is there a "quantum", an N-dimensional distance
added between points, for that expansion?
If the expansion is has no quantum, or that
quantum is smaller than a fairly stable particle,
for example, a proton, then space expands within
the proton. Unless the quarks are kept within the
range of the strong force (qluon decay?), the
proton would convert to one or more free quarks
or a meson plus quark (or something). Since the
quarks are farther apart due to expansion at some
time "later" than another, where does the energy
come from to continually (incrementally) move them
back to within the confines of the proton?
I realize that I have probably missed several
"somethings", so feel free to correct my
cosmology.
Well here's a link to a critique. While verbose and technical, it doesn't quite have the same dismissal as the article by the physicist which I cannot find:
p py/tipler.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_o
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Not to worry, it's only flat on one side.
Just as a note to the religious fascist jerkoff who posted this: you have made a one-man argument for why people who don't fall for your bullshit should own firearms. I hope the first atheist you try to kill double-taps you with a .45