Maybe the universe is not the same everywhere we look?
| June 26, 2014 | Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, News |
Advising us to “Embrace the lumpiverse,” a paywalled New Scientist article explains, “How mess kills dark energy”:
Not an overly superstitious bunch, cosmologists invent names for the poltergeists responsible – dark matter, dark flows, dark energy – and invest a lot of effort in proving they are real. But might they, too, be chasing ghosts?
No, no, the summer movie feature premieres next week. This is your regular pop science feature from New Scientist.
See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).
Follow UD News at Twitter!
5 Responses to Maybe the universe is not the same everywhere we look?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
as to:
Funny that this article from the day before yesterday states General Relativity passed its toughest test yet by measuring its ‘clumpiness’ of the universe (i.e. which is the same as lumpiness I would suppose), and finding that it agrees precisely with what is predicted by General Relativity:
Moreover, if naturalism/materialism were actually true then we would NOT expect the universe to look/behave the same everywhere we look. We would expect the laws of the universe to vary from one place to another in the universe. And, as a result, we would expect the universe to look very different from place to place. The assumption that the universe is governed by God through a non-variant set of laws is one of the primary Theistic assumptions that lead to the founding of modern science.
According to the materialistic philosophy, there are no apparent reasons why the value of each transcendent universal constant could not have varied dramatically from what they actually are. In fact, the presumption of materialism expects a fairly large amount of flexibility, indeed chaos, in the underlying constants for the universe, since the constants themselves are postulated to randomly ’emerge’ from some, as far as I can tell, completely undefined material basis at the Big Bang. In fact if an atheist were ever to be truly consistent in his thinking (which would be a miracle in its own right) he would have to admit that he should a-priori expect variance in the universal laws and constants, like this following astronomer did:
Indeed, the materialistic worldview is, at its ‘chaotic’ base, very antagonistic to the very ideal that we should find such unchanging laws. This fact alone goes a long way towards explaining why there were no atheists at the founding of the modern scientific revolution. Yet, Christianity, contrary to what atheists would prefer to believe, is very nurturing to such an idea of unchanging universal constants. And indeed it can be, and has been, forcefully argued that that reason is one of the main reasons why we always find that the great men at the base of the modern scientific revolution were devout Christians. As C. S. Lewis, in his clear no nonsense style, put it:
Moreover, most atheists do not seem to realize that if the universal constants were actually found to have even a small variance in them then this would destroy our ability to practice science rationally, for it would undermine our ability to mathematically model the universe in a reliable fashion. Please note the chaos that would ensue if just a very small variance were found to be in one of the universal constants:
Einstein himself expressed wonder at the ‘epistemological miracle’ that we should, merely by taking thought, reliably model the world with mathematics:
Indeed it is by all rights that this seemingly foreign, even outrageously bold, Theistic proposition of the rational intelligibility of the universe, that could even be dared to be comprehended by mere human minds, should be so successful as a proposition of thought for man. For why should it be that mere human minds, human minds who ‘just so’ happened to believe that their minds were, of all things, created in the image of the a infinitely powerful Being Who had created the entire universe (i.e. Almighty God), would be so successful as to establishing a solid foundation for modern science, unless this seemingly outlandish idea of being made in God’s image were actually true? In other words, why should science be so successful unless this seemingly outrageous propositions underlying the foundation of modern science were actually true? Dr. Meyer reflects on the success of that outrageous proposition here in this video:
Moreover, modern science has actually revealed that this outrageous proposition, (that the universe was created by the rational Mind of God, and that our mind is created in the image of that rational Mind, and that therefore we can comprehend the universe to a deep level), is confirmed on many levels by science. One of the most impressive levels is that the universe is ‘suspiciously set up’ for scientific discovery:
This following videos are in the same line of thought as the preceding videos:
But, as impressive, suspicious, and persuasive, as the preceding ‘hints’ are that the universe was created by the Mind of God and can be understood by the mind of man, since we are made in God’s image, the deepest correlation, of our mind to the Mind of God, finds its most concrete proof of correlation from looking at consciousness itself through the lens of quantum mechanics.
i.e. Because of the postulated correlation of our mind to the Mind of God within Theism,,,
,,,we can then develop a very strong argument for God from ‘consciousness’, and even provide strong empirical proof for that argument from quantum mechanics:
Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
correction:
Indeed it is by all rights A MIRACLE that this seemingly foreign
a few supplemental notes:
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
Excerpt: Examples of fine – tuning for discoverability.,,,
The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf
Michael Denton has revealed that the chemistry of life seems suspiciously set specifically for human type life:
The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
Excerpt Summary (page 11)
For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1
At the 38:10 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Huterer speaks of the ‘why right now? coincidence problem’ for dark matter and visible matter:
Dragan Huterer – ‘coincidence problem’ – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTJc1Y7duM#t=2290
Moreover, Radio Astronomy now reveals privileged position for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. ,,,,
What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf
Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
Caption under figure on page 43:
ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf
My kid had a HS Teacher who would pile on the homework like you do BA77. I’m not complaining though.