Science writing in the media is always suspect at best and flat out wrong at worst, although IMHO the NYT seem to do a decent job most of the time. Consider their target audience here: who wants to hear about error considerations and corrections for pages on end? Those of us with a background in the field, probably, but average Joe Shmoe on the street isn't likely to give a damn. Pie-in-the-sky speculations by cosmologists, though, is far wierder and more likely to sell papers. They don't really mischaracterize any of this, although they really should emphasize that all of these wierd ideas are very preliminary. At several points they do point out that most of it is speculation, but that doesn't make it any less cool! I think it would be neat if the universe was a donut.
Damn, that blows my chocolate eclair theory out of the water.
Now it is time for us on FR to look at the evidence and once and for all decide the argument that has plagued us all for so long. The question that has reduced otherwise sane and intelligent people to name calling and the occasional metaphorical smackdown. Can we finally resolve this and bring peace to the science threads?
Krispy Kreme or Dunkin' Donuts?
Now it is time for us on FR to look at the evidence and once and for all decide the argument that has plagued us all for so long. The question that has reduced otherwise sane and intelligent people to name calling and the occasional metaphorical smackdown. Can we finally resolve this and bring peace to the science threads?Krispy Kreme or Dunkin' Donuts?
Krispy Kreme, definitely. The long-lived vibrations throughout the universe, with some damping of the lowest-frequency waves, strongly suggest a yeasty, spongy texture, as opposed to a rigid, cake-like texture.
But I could be wrong. I think I'll go try to convince hubby that we need to perform further experiments...