Dark Energy May Not Exist At All

Antman said:

Et tu, Brutus? The ant is among the most noble of creatures. The arch they build is fractal.

You misconstrue my intent sir. It was never my intent to demean the ant and its contribution to our world. I apologize. I should have placed quotes around the word "humble".

As to your well founded point, much of nature is fractal. It was "civilization" that "needed" the comfortable reassurance of "linearity".

Fractals are a fairly recent development in our civilization's efforts to mathematically model our natural environment. Am I correct? One more small step toward enlightenment?

I saw the previews of the show and have it recorded. Perhaps I can watch it tonight.

Public TV, History Channel and Nat Geo are some of my favorite channels.

Bare Foot Kid said:

This assumes the ability to use reason.

Muad Dib said:

The arch, when used in construction, is considered to be an indicator of a more advance technology in pre-history civilizations by some historians. Yet the humble ant uses the arch in constructing its underground habitats.

Did the ant develop the arch through reason or by a Darwinian trial and error process of evolution?

Should the earth be visited by alien archaeologists a million years from now and the human species has all gone to meet its maker, what will they hypothesize about us?

My bad, I should've used the term "higher reason"; I lose interest when someone throws Darwin at me, a person that didn't have enough b.... to defend his own theory later in life after he'd had time to re-visit what he'd said.

Oh well, this was a good discussion while it lasted.

Bare Foot Kid said:

My bad, I should've used the term "higher reason"; I lose interest when someone throws Darwin at me, a person that didn't have enough b.... to defend his own theory later in life after he'd had time to re-visit what he'd said.

Oh well, this was a good discussion while it lasted.

Did Darwin not have the b**** to defend his theory or did he just want to keep his b**** much as Galileo did in 1632.

Moot point really as it was and is the scientific community that, eventually, validates, or invalidatesm, any proposed theory.

Perhaps, Galileo was wrong. Of course, maybe we have never been to the moon, so...


Also, from Publisher: Catholic Apologetics Publishing by Robert Sungenis

Experts in advanced mathematics have recently proposed a new model to explain...

As undeniably interesting, and impressively computed and calculated as all these theories are - they are still just theories.

It is a never ending quest to seek ultimately unattainable answers.

Just like religion, science also uses arbitrarily delineated points in an attempt to provide an explanation that aims to comfort, or satisfy mankinds thirst for knowledge.

It's (subjectively) easy to draw a line, mark one point as the start, the other as the finish and then fill in the middle with explanations based on mathematics, speculation, sheer fancy or a mixture of all.

However, if those arbitrarily selected points are wrong to begin with, then all the complicated formulas or smoothly delivered sermons, no matter how well calculated, or how reasonable sounding they seem, will make what is invariably wrong, right.

As intertwined as religion and science are (much more than some care to acknowledge), the divergence of the two is that the latter is generally more willing to accept that it's theories are wrong and continually seek to adapt and adjust to new facts.

Either way, it's a fun and interesting ride seeking answers. But just like the bible, don't take scientific theories as gospel