Time Immortal

Turns out Earth may just be in a special location after all.

…a paper set to be published in an upcoming edition of Physical Review Letters…by a trio of Oxford astrophysicists suggests a different explanation for the accelerating expansion. In their proposal, dark energy does not exist at all and the supernovae data that led to scientists to propose it was improperly interpreted. In coming to this conclusion, however, the three researchers have to throw out a philosophical principle that has guided astronomy for over 450 years.

…In 1543, Nicholas Copernicus‘ revolutionary tome De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was first printed. In the book, Copernicus put forth a heliocentric theory that eventually overthrew the Ptolemaic idea that the Earth stood at the center of the universe.

This single book produced modern astronomy and is credited with kick-starting the scientific revolution. In it, Copernicus (among other things) put forth the concept that the Earth is not unique and does not occupy any sort of special position within the solar system. A generalization of this principle — the [E]arth does not occupy a favored position within the universe — has, along with Einstein’s equations, become the founding assumption of modern cosmology.

In the upcoming PRL paper, the authors postulate that we are indeed in a special location within the universe, specifically, “near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low.” This isn’t exactly a small void — it would need to be on the order of the size of the visible universe to get the new model to work. Still, the earth would be near its center, which is a vaguely pre-Copernican notion and, as a side effect, the model does away with dark energy. Unfortunately, it also does away with the notion that we can infer universal properties from local observations.

Now I ask the Reader: what’s so bad about that last bit? Is it not, in a certain sense, arrogant to assume that we can infer all that much about the properties of most of the Universe based on our limited observations of a fraction of a percent of a percent of a percent of a percent of it, and then only that tiny bit that is essentially within the local area of our planet?

This is a most interesting proposal that is being put forth here, and one to watch.

Good to know.

One simply has to love the “New Atheists” for their sheer muddle-headedness. On one hand, such men as these deny with the utmost conviction the existence of God, Jesus, and all other concepts of the divine. On the other hand, they desire to live in a world informed by the moral systems that man’s belief in the supernatural, especially Christian belief, has inspired — a world which cares for its poor and its sick, and world in which there is justice.

That is not, of course, the Darwinian way, in which life is said to be “nasty, brutish, and short.” It would seem that Richard Dawkins, in particular, does not wish to confront the fact that every time his philosophical standpoint has been explored to its fullest, most logical outcome, the result has tended toward the nasty and brutish.

As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian).

This is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too,” O Reader, and it’s very unbecoming to see a learned Oxford professor engaging in such philosophical hypocrisy…especially when in most other arenas, said Oxford professor has been a passionate evangelist for atheism and the deconstruction of religion in the world. What business does such a man have in demanding that all the social awareness which Religion — especially Christianity — has encouraged be retained even as the religion itself is jettisoned?