Cosmology Intelligent Design

Yes, the world really is flat

Spread the love
NASA-HS201427a-HubbleUltraDeepField2014-20140603.jpg
Hubble Ultra-Deep Field/NASA

Okay, the universe is flat.

From astrophysicist Paul Sutter at Space.com:

The universe has all sorts of deformations in space-time where it varies from the perfectly flat. Any place where there’s mass or energy, there’s a corresponding bending of space-time — that’s General Relativity 101. So a couple light beams would naturally collide inside a wandering black hole, or bend along weird angles after encountering a galaxy or two.

But average all those small-scale effects out and look at the big picture. When we examine very old light — say, the cosmic microwave background — that has been traveling the universe for more than 13.8 billion years, we get a true sense of the universe’s shape. And the answer, as far as we can tell, to within an incredibly small margin of uncertainty, is that the universe is flat.

But, he warns, there is a lot of subtlety packed into that flatness: “You heard it here first: Cylinders are flat.”

Also:

And here’s a bonus fact: not only can we not determine the topology of the universe from observations, but there are also no laws of physics that predict or restrict the topology. More.

Surely something does, however, restrict the topology if the universe appears to be the same in every direction.

See also: Once more: What if dark matter doesn’t exist?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Yes, the world really is flat

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    The Bible ‘predicted’ the universe to be flat thousands of years before it was discovered by modern science:

    Verse and Music:

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Johnny Cash – I Walk The Line 1958
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xObSJWIWui0

    Also of note, Job is considered the oldest book of the Bible,,

    The Oldest Book: Job
    Excerpt: Job is the oldest book in the Bible. It might be the oldest book in the world. It’s older than Genesis,,,
    We know this because of the age of the Hebrew used.,,,
    Job is in the time of the patriarchs, meaning the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Most likely, it was somewhere after Babel and before Abraham. This would be approx. 2200 BC to 1800 BC.
    https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/the-oldest-book-job-1-5/

    Moreover, the Bible also predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) to be spherical thousands of years before it was discovered:

    Verses:

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    A few notes to that effect:

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in the universe compared to the CMBR at the 3:36 minute mark in the video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

    Here is a still shot of the image at the 3:36 minute mark of the preceding video

    Picture of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
    http://new-universe.org/zenpho.....rams47.jpg

    Planck satellite unveils the Universe — now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the ‘sphere’ of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the satellite) – 2010
    http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv

    The Cosmic Background Radiation
    Excerpt: These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation. The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for (a naturalistic understanding of) the big bang theory.
    First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals traveling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem.
    Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure. ,,, Thus, the discovery of small deviations from smoothness (anisotopies) in the cosmic microwave background is welcome, for it provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe. However, as we shall see, we are still far from a quantitative understanding of how this came to be.
    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/ast.....y/cbr.html

    You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016
    Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere.
    The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe.
    Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened.
    But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates.
    But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes.
    https://giphy.com/gifs/xT4uQEEBWRiB2gcxbO
    https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk

  2. 2
    awstar says:

    When we examine very old light — say, the cosmic microwave background — that has been traveling the universe for more than 13.8 billion years, we get a true sense of the universe’s shape. … not only can we not determine the topology of the universe from observations, but there are also no laws of physics that predict or restrict the topology

    Added to that topology uncertainty, is the uncertainty of the one-way speed of light. So that “very old light” might just be not so old after all.

    from the Mathpages further reading reference given in Wikipedia’s page on One-way_speed_of_light at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

    http://www.mathpages.com/home/.....ath229.htm

    To this extent the choice of synchronization methods, and therefore the one-way speed of light, is conventional, in a way that the round-trip speed of light is not.

  3. 3
    Pearlman says:

    The entire physical universe approximates the entire universe, thus a sphere w/ us by the center.
    flat universe akin to flat earth club groping in the dark.
    one faulty premise of current standard SCM is ongoing cosmic expansion
    Reference SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis
    G-d measuring the expanse to the end of the heavens means the radius.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Table Of Contents for TWO DOZEN (OR SO) ARGUMENTS FOR GOD: THE PLANTINGA PROJECT (due out Summer 2017)

    I. Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments
    (A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness)
    • Lorraine Keller, Niagara University
    • “Propositions Supernaturalized”
    (B) The Argument from Collections
    • Chris Menzel, Texas A&M
    • “The Argument from Collections”
    (C) The Argument from (Natural) Numbers
    • Tyron Goldshmidt, Wake Forest
    • “The Argument from (Natural) Numbers”
    (D) The Argument From Counterfactuals
    • Alex Pruss, Baylor University
    • “Counterfactuals, Vagueness and God”
    (E) The Argument from Physical Constants
    • Robin Collins, Messiah College
    • “The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability”
    (F) The Naive Teleological Argument
    • C. Stephen Evans, Baylor University
    • “An Argument from Design for Ordinary People”
    (H) The Ontological Argument
    • Elizabeth Burns, Heythrop College
    • “Patching Planting’s Ontological Argument by Making the Murdoch Move”
    (I) Why is there anything at all?
    • Josh Rasmussen, Azusa Pacific; and Christopher Gregory Weaver, Rutgers University
    • “Why is There Anything?”

    II. Half a dozen Epistemological Arguments
    (J) The argument from positive epistemic status
    • Justin Barrett, Fuller Seminary
    • “Evolutionary Psychology and the Argument from Positive Epistemic Status”
    (K) The Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability
    • Alex Arnold, The John Templeton Foundation
    • “Is God the Designer of our Cognitive Faculties? Evaluating Plantinga’s Argument”
    (L) The Argument from Simplicity and (M) The Argument from Induction
    • Bradly Monton, Independent Scholar
    • “Atheistic Induction by Boltzmann Brains”

    (N) The Putnamian Argument (the Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)[also, (O) The Argument from Reference and (K) The Argument from the Confluence of Proper Function and Reliability]
    • Even Fales, University of Iowa
    • “Putnam’s Semantic Skepticism and the Epistemic Melt-Down of Naturalism: How Defeat of Putnam’s Puzzle Provides a Defeater for Plantinga’s Self-Defeat Argument Against Naturalism”

    (N) The Putnamian Argument, (O) The Argument from Reference, and (P) The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument from Plus and Quus
    • Dan Bonevac, Universitiy of Texas
    • “Arguments from Knowledge, Reference, and Content”

    (Q) The General Argument from Intuition.
    • Rob Koons, University of Texas at Austin
    • “The General Argument from Intuition”

    III. Moral arguments
    (R) Moral Arguments (actually R1 to Rn)
    • David Baggett, Liberty University
    • “An Abductive Moral Argument for God”

    (R*) The argument from evil.
    • Hud Hudson, Western Washington University
    • “Felix Culpa!”

    IV. Other Arguments
    (S) The Argument from Colors and Flavors
    • Richard Swinburne, Oxford University
    • “The Argument from Consciousness”
    (T) The Argument from Love and (Y) The Argument from the Meaning of Life
    • Jerry Walls, Houston Baptist University
    • “The God of Love and the Meaning of Life”
    (U) The Mozart Argument and (V) The Argument from Play and Enjoyment
    • Philip Tallon, Houston Baptist University
    • “The Theistic Argument from Beauty and Play”
    (W) Arguments from providence and from miracles
    • Tim McGrew, Western Michigan University
    • “Of Miracles: The State of the Art and the Uses of History”
    (X) C.S. Lewis’s Argument from Nostalgia
    • Todd Buras, Baylor University and Mike Cantrell
    • “A New Argument from Desire”
    (Z) The Argument from (A) to (Y)
    • Ted Poston, University of South Alabama
    • “The Argument from So Many Arguments”

    V. “Or so”: Three More Arguments
    The Kalam Cosmological Argument
    • William Lane Craig, Houston Baptist University
    • “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”
    The Argument from Possibility
    • Brian Leftow, Oxford University
    • “The Argument from Possibility”
    The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature
    • Bruce Gordon, Houston Baptist University
    • “The Necessity of Sufficiency: The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature”

Leave a Reply