Posted on 09/03/2009 8:13:40 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I came across a news item in the USA Today website, dated August 18, that got my attention. It concerns "Dark Energy", the mysterious force that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, that no one can find or explain.
Two scientists say is doesn't exist now because of a "mathematical solution they have produced, that suggests it is a natural result of the Big Bang. Part of the article is reproduced here.
"What's the answer? It doesn't exist, suggest mathematicians Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, in a study released Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.
Dark energy is an illusion if their equations are right, and the universe, at least 27.2 billion light years across, is spreading at an increasing rate into an even bigger vacuum empty of any matter, propelled by the energy of the Big Bang.
The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be "literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe. "I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn't seem physically relevant."
It is the part that says "we must be "literally at the center of the universe," for this solution to work, that caught my attention.
Three hundred years ago, two scientists named Galileo and Copernicus, were chastised and punished by the church for saying that the earth and sun were not the center of the universe. Since then the church has revised its "interpretation of the Bible" to allow for the scientifically proven "facts" that our earth and solar system are merely a small speck in an unimaginably large universe that is about 27 billions light years in width. The idea of being at the center of something so large was just too outrageous.
Now we have two distinguished mathematicians and scientists saying that the only way we can explain Dark Energy is for the earth to be the center of the universe AGAIN.
I have always had reservations about our place in God's creation but, given our insignificance in it, gave up the idea long ago that we were the center of anything. Given that there are literally trillions of stars and galaxies full of stars, it seemed unreasonable to think that we are on the only planet with life.
As I learned to appreciate the complexity of the single living cell, and all the various things that had to come together on this rock, JUST RIGHT, for life to exist, I began to re-evaluate my feelings about life elsewhere in the universe. It is true that probability says that with the large number of stars with planets, there must be some with the same conditions for life.
Then I look at the DNA structure and think "how could nature have possibly put something like this together?" If God did create man as a unique form of life, it is possible that He did it only once, and that maybe we are at the center of His creation after all.
From the scientific perspective, there are so many possible stars with planets like ours that life must be prolific, IF IT HAPPENED ACCIDENTALLY. By the same reasoning, by looking at the complexity of DNA structure and the workings of a living organism, the odds of it happening accidentally are almost zero.
Perhaps they are zero.
Contrary to what science says, there may be some events for which it is impossible for them to happen naturally. Maybe God did do it only once, and we are it. Maybe the earth really is the center of the universe. It is too much for THIS human mind to balance an infinitely large universe with the infinitely complex structure of life, and come up with a scientifically reasonable conclusion.
Occam's Razor, is a hypothesis that says, "When the solution to a problem involves increasingly complex solutions and explanations, the most likely solution is the simplest one". In this case the "simplest" explanation would be that an infinitely powerful God DID create life specifically for this very special world, and that maybe we ARE at the center of creation.
Wouldn't that be humbling?
makes more sense to say that the universe has a center (and the center has to be *somewhere*) than to come up with dark energy that can’t be detected in a lab.
Scientists have also discovered that there is a slight rotation to the universe as a whole, which, when coupled with this new center-of-the universe hypothesis leads me to conclude that yes, the universe does revolve around me!
If the universe is infinite, then every point in the universe is the center.
I don’t know of any scientists these days hold that the Universe is infinite.
science sticks to what can be measured and you can’t measure an infinite universe.
Actually, if the universe is everything that is as the word itself implies then it is infinite. If there is a boundary then there is something beyond the boundary, if only empty volume. The mind cannot really conceive of infinite space. Neither can it really conceive of bounded space without something beyond the boundary.
Further, that if you travel 20-30 billion light years out on a "straight line" radial, you will wind up back where you started (in space).
Every direction we (and any other observer) look in, we see the black body radiation from the primordial universe, frequency shifted down due to the expansion of space.
We can’t conceive of bounded space without something beyond the boundary but at least we can deal with the space that we are aware of if we assume it is finite.
Let’s give a practical problem. We have probability: some things are rare and some things are more common. Now let’s say we throw infinity into the law of large numbers. That now means that everything that is theoretically possible should always be actualized. Is this the case? Obviously not. Probability doesn’t really work in an infinite universe.
Which, in itself, is impossible. How much bigger would the universe be after 30 billion years? For all intents and purposes, it's infinite because from our perspective there is not too much difference between 'infinite' and 'mind-staggeringly huge'. We'll never know the limits of either definition. Just as one would not be able to tell the difference between 'god' and 'a creature very similar to god' because of OUR limitations.
How so? In a multi-verse, you wouldn't be able to know what conditions were like in the other universes.
a multi-verse makes things much worse for empirical science! We have to go back to occam’s razor and KISS: One finite universe.
yeah but in 5 zillion other universes, Prodigal son said we do so you’re over-ruled. :)
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
Please just have me banned. Not Free Republic anymore. Religious Republic. Seriously. Contact Jim or John Robinson and tell them to zot me.
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
Also, this is in GENERAL DISCUSSION. You want to think about what you’re saying? Get it right moderator before you get all sanctimonious on me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.