Cosmology News

Cosmology: You mean the universe maybe isn’t expanding?

Spread the love
Cover Image: March 2008 Scientific American Magazine

From “Gravitational Waves Can Explain Dark Energy And Axis of Evil, Says Cosmologist” (KFC, Physics Arxiv Blog, September 22, 2011), we learn:

“Cosmos-sized gravitational waves would distort our view of the universe in a way that matches some of cosmologists’ most puzzling observation, says cosmologist” First there was the Big Bang. But that didn’t explain everything. So now,

Until now, cosmologists have considered only waves with relatively short wavelengths. But Schluessel’s idea is to imagine what the universe would look like if it contained much bigger waves with a wavelength of the order of the curvature of the cosmos itself, that’s some 10^10 light years. These would be waves left over from the big bang that continue to resonate slowly on a vast scale

Here’s the thing. Schluessel says these waves would distort the microwave back ground radiation in way that matches the preferred directions cosmologists see today. What’s more, it would also distort the light from distant objects in way that would make them look as if they were accelerating away.

But won’t Larry Krauss’s religion, and all cosmology generally disappear in the chaos? He knows the Truth about how it all has to end. And if he’s wrong, wow.

You can see why we run these stories through the graveyard shift.

See also: Celeb atheists Dawkins and Grayling don’t want to debate apologist Craig because … maybe a reason is now emerging … Larry Krauss!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Cosmology: You mean the universe maybe isn’t expanding?

  1. 1
    vjtorley says:

    News,

    The article you linked to at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27187/ looks extremely interesting, and I’m very impressed by the fact that Schluessel makes testable predictions.

    However, I’d just like to point out one thing. Schluessel does not claim that the universe might not be expanding, after all. What he claims is that the acceleration of this expansion may be merely apparent, as well as the observation that this acceleration is more pronounced in some directions than in others (the so-called axis of evil). The explanation he invokes (long-wavelength gravitational waves) is quite compatible with the Big Bang – indeed, many of these waves are supposed to have been created in the Big Bang.

    Just thought I’d let you know. Cheers.

  2. 2
    rhampton7 says:

    Since Intelligent Design is an empirical scientific theory, I’m a bit confused why UD posts these kinds of stories. The motive doesn’t seem to be a celebration of discovery, but rather of building a case against Science. Perhaps you believe that Science lacks credibility because it is continually challenged by new theories (only some of which are accepted). If so, then how will you defend ID when – inevitably – those who follow Meyer, Dembski, et. al. revolutionize the field with new ideas, some of which discredit ideas currently accepted (within ID) as correct? Perhaps you believe that the public should be skeptical scientific theories in general. If so, then how could you logically advocate for the public to accept ID? Seems to me that those who support the theory of Intelligent Design who also work to cast doubt on Science and the scientific process (in general) are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

  3. 3
    seraphim says:

    @rhampton7 – I don’t think it’s “anti-science”. It’s “anti scientific hubris”. Cosmology still has several gigantic unknowns yet cosmologists regularly issue nearly-dogmatic statements about the nature and origin of the universe. It’s refreshing to see research that questions commonly-accepted assumptions.

    This is the same kind of hubris that ID struggles against all the time.

    Articles like this one are poking holes in the hubris — not at science.

  4. 4
    rhampton7 says:

    Well, I seem recall that a recent paper was mocked for using tentative language (wish I could find that link). So how can scientists phrase their communications so that it is neither too weak nor too strong? If you were to use the same measure of hubris to examine the scientific communications of Intelligent Design theory, would you find the same mistakes?

Leave a Reply