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?
Look at the url at the top of your browser. This thread is posted in the Religion Forum.
I object to your use of the word ‘potty’. I find it offensive and scatalogical in nature. Why must you mention anything to do with fecal matter on a religious thread?
Why can’t you just use the term ‘foul language’?
No, YOU look at the thread itself. Right where it says ‘TOPICS’. It is in the General Forum. This is where I came across it. If you don’t want it in the General Forum, you need to remove it.
On the right hand side of the Free Republic browser, you’ll see a block titled “Browse by Forum.” If you click on “topic” next to “Religion” - you’ll see that “general” is one of the topics on the Religion Forum. You’ll also see “Religion and Culture” and “Religion and Science.”
Your objection is noted.
I don’t browse like that. Who are you to tell me How to browse FR? Going by your incept date- I’ve been using this forum a lot longer than you.
You’ve got- TOPICS: General Discussion, Religion and Culture, Religion and Science.
That’s right above keywords.
This thread is absolutely in the General Discussion forum.
Going by what you’re saying, any fool can come along and add any thread to the Religion category by clicking a link and then all serious/heated discussion would be banned from every thread. That’s absurd.
Whoever posted this thread made a firm decision to stick it in the General Discussion forum. They shouldn’t do that if they don’t want General/Random freepers coming along and commenting and posting back and forth to the other people on the thread.
100%, Absolutely in General Discussion.
Just notionally. At one time in cosmology, there was an idea that the universe would collapse after reaching some finite expansion. The end was either ultimate collapse and hot death, or infinite expansion and cold death. In the former case, timed right, the traveling would bring you to a singularity (which you or your dust would have wound up at anyway). Of course you would have to travel at the speed of light to last so long.
Since we now see acceleration in expansion, which would mean you are right, circumnavigation of the universe is in fact, impossible, and generally superlatively impractical. I wasn't going to try it!
Aye, this butts into one of the problems of theoretical physics. Lots of things are possible when we use light speed. If we can travel at light speed we can accomplish all the what ifs. But, it would seem that’s not going to be possible for us in our present format.
Perhaps if we reach a stage that the post-humanists fantasize about and are able to digitize the human mind and upload it to a computer... It would then be possible for the human mind to travel at light speed- as a digitized signal. If it had a receiver at the end of its journey and a computer to install itself in, it would be like sending a program through the air. My modem is wireless...
But there are probably loads of problems with that as well.
For all intents and purposes, we will never make it to the edge of the universe.
...and a bunch of amateurs once again somehow prove the universe revolves around them? Seems more a prescription for therapy.
But we could never make it to the "edge of the universe," because there isn't one.
Distortion of the facts.
Edge of the universe is, VERY OBVIOUSLY, a figure of speech. I know there are a lot of you humorless literal types out there. Which makes me wish I were not human. It’s like- ‘the edge of sanity’. Nobody who actually says something like that means literally a rim/hem/lip of sanity any more than people literally think the Earth has an edge when they say ‘ends of the Earth’.
Even at the speed of light, you’d still need how many billions of years? It doesn’t matter. All of civilization would have changed so fundamentally in 20 billion years, your quest wouldn’t even matter by the time you go there.
That’s what I mean by there being no way we can reach the edge of the universe.
God I hate people. All of ‘em. If we were all floating in a toilet bowl (which in a way it seems like we are), I can only hope something will come along and flush us...
Wow! Talk about absence of humor. I just think that it is interesting that there is no edge of the universe, and think that it is useful to employ accurate language to discuss such topics. No harm meant.
We’re not computers. We’re people. People discussing a topic. I can use the term ‘ends of the Earth’ no? And look, I know the Earth has ends because I’ve been to them many times, looking looking looking...
But I suppose that is more or less gibberish to you huh? The Earth is round. It has no ends. Therefore I could not have been to them. Therefore I do not compute. (marches off stage with his arms held stiffly out in front of him like that a stupid robot)
Employ Accurate language. Like America being the Land of the Free, yeah? Something like that? Gimme a break.
Of all possible worlds. I get stuck on the one planet with all these... Where there is so much potential squandered...
You ever think about that? It could easily be so much better. You know why it’s not? People. People like it when life = fecal matter (can’t say what I think because the Thread moderator nazi person might turn up and delete my post). People LIKE the world like this. People like making each other suffer. They LIKE it. They pay to see films depicting it. They read books about. They can’t get enough of it. They love war. They make weapons. They fight each other. They can’t get enough.
This is YOU. This is ME. This is HUMANITY. You want to talk about an absence of humor. Yeah, you’re DANGED right. I have no sense of humor. I’m stuck on this stupid rock with all these stupid people. It’s not funny. But then, in a way it is...
Poetic you may intend, stupid you appear to be. "Ends to the earth" ceased to have useful meaning shortly after it was generally accepted that the earth was round. Archaic, poetic at best. Mostly a sign of a confused individual trying to appeal to some naive, star-struck lost soul. Why not be precise when addressing another human - instead of rather lazily trying to get away with some incomprehensible rant? Sir, I elude your point.
You are quite free to use the term "ends of the earth," it may well suit your device, but it is not descriptive of anything modern intelligent humans think, feel, or relate to.
As far as your heartfelt implication that people like brutality, I say - no way, save for a pathological minority. Generally, people are awed and frightened by violence and brutality, and only resort to same to defend themselves against the most oppressive circumstance. That is people, not unrestrained Government - that often acts on apparent wanton freak.
Ok. I’m stupid. I am scum.
Whatever the lowest thing is you can call me- I accept that whole-heartedly and agree with you 100%.
I’m an idiot. My IQ was once recorded as the lowest ever by experts. It was in negative numbers.
I don’t even remember what we were talking about to be honest and don’t care.
Prodigal Son was just the first thing that popped into my head. It was either that or some fecal related one.
Define freedom. Precisely.
Define love. Precisely.
What's your point? You don't like the way people use words? Not my problem. This isn't a science thread- as the mdoerator to this thread has already pointed out. It's religion and general discussion. So what if a usage is poetic? So what? People DO actuallly talk like that. I'm sorry if this bothers you.
Have a nice day.
Actually, don’t have a nice day.
I was just acting on reflex when I put that bit in there.
The exact center of the universe is elastic. It is whatever space Chairman Maobama occupies at any given t.
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.