Lumen Daily News

The Price of Young Love is a compelling story about two citizens of Afghanistan falling in love, but there’s one problem; dating is not allowed. This article is by Jack Healy, a foreign correspondent for The Times. This article definitely is biased against the religious ways and constrictions of Afghanistan. First Healy makes the story sound so silly to you by explaining that these two people that fall in love are completely innocent. In the first paragraph “it sounds innocent enough…” This appeals to the reader and makes the reader pity the couple.

Jack Healy also put in two pictures, one is of Rafi, and the other is of Halima’s Father. The difference in these two pictures is that Rafi’s picture is so much bigger than Halima’s Father. The size makes the reader see it and care about. Halima’s Father’s picture is very small and almost makes the reader skip over it due to its lack of importance. Also the reader gets to sympathize with Rafi and Halima first. The picture helps the reader sympathize and then only when you have completely been sympathized by the horrors of the things that happened, you get to see Halima’s Father. This is perfectly placed because when you get to the picture you already dislike what Halima’s Father is doing and what he wants.

This article by Stephanie Clifford and Catherine Rampell is biased on the shrinking of the amount of food in a bag or container. Both Clifford and Rampell are against the shrink of it. This article presents facts, or things may have noticed but not have cared about. In the first paragraph it has these examples. One example was “the Kingly Sized Snickers bar has gotten less Kinglier”.

This article also includes quotes from professors. The reason that this document uses quotes from professors is that professors are smart people and normally people are going to agree with them. This will influence lots of people reading this document. One of the quotes from this article is actually from the company. “Cady Behles, a spokesperson for Häagan-Dazs ice cream, defends the company’s decision to…” The use of the word defends makes it sound as if this ice cream company has done something wrong and must explain why what they did wrong isn’t terrible. Not only does the article have quotes but it also has a picture showing the shrinking that the companies have done. An example of this document using pictures is when it shows the then and then after picture. By doing this it gives the reader raw evidence that proves that companies have been shortening their treats.

After conducting countless hours upon days of research on the origin and structure of the universe, I hereby present my very own theory, which is unnamed. In no way is this theory complete; there is still much research to be done to explain almost every aspect of the universe that exists according to this theory. My theory uses ideas presented in multiverse theory, Doughnut Theory, and the Big Bang. Enjoy.

In my theory, each organism inhabits its own parallel universe, which uses information from the universes of other organisms to construct the world within each universe. Similar to multiverse theory, each decision made by an individual spawns new universes based on the number of possible outcomes. Unlike multiverse theory, however, my theory includes clear boundaries as to the data created by a parallel universe; this data remains pertinent to the individual who is the main inhabitant of the universe. This way, each parallel universe that is spawned to accommodate a possible outcome does not become jumbled with the outcomes created by other organisms. With my theory, outcomes can be systematically sorted into each parallel universe on the same linear level to allow for every possible holistic outcome to occur. As insane and complicated as all of this sounds, it is just the beginning…

Each parallel universe is its own membrane; think of a membrane a sheet with information about the universe. Since the parallel universe should pertain to only one person, unless extraterrestrial data affect the parallel universe, the membrane can stay relatively confined to the boundaries of the organism’s solar system. This way, membranes take up less space. But you say, what does it matter if membranes take up space? Don’t these membranes exist within an infinitely large universe? Well, the answer is no. Membranes exist within a doughnut-shaped structure, the same one spoken of in Doughnut Theory. This doughnut structure has finite volume. When the doughnut becomes too small to hold every membrane, it will accelerate.

Accelerate where, you may ask. Isn’t the doughnut the entire universe? Actually, the doughnut exists within another world, in which there are huge structures which also contain data. However, these structures each contain their own laws of physics, just like the the doughnut contains its own laws of physics. Since scientific fact differs from structure to structure, the internal composition of each structure is different. The inside of a structure may contain a singular universe, parallel universes, or something else we cannot comprehend. What happens when the doughnut accelerates? Well, its chances of colliding with another structure are quite high, and when this happens, an entirely new structure with its own laws of physics is created.

The Big Bounce is a theory about the formation of the Universe. It can be loosely related to the cyclic or oscillatory universe adaptation of the Big Bang. It states that the current Universe resulted from the collapse of a previous Universe, which indicates a kind of cosmic rebirth. This idea is similar to the Big Bang in the sense that the Big Bang will supposedly end with the “Big Crunch”, which is a reversal effect in which all matter is attracted and disappears into a “white” hole. In the Big Bounce, the universe would be reborn with the Big Bang, and the exact history of the universe would be repeated in each cycle.

According to proponents of this theory, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of a time of expansion that followed a period of contraction that will be followed by another period of contraction. The events will reoccur through infinity. It is also possible that we are living in the first period of expansion or the millionth. The main idea behind the Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the fundamental physical constants as we know them were not so constant during the period of contraction, so if the fundamental physical constants were determined in a quantum-mechanical manner during contraction, then their apparently inexplicable values now would not be so surprising.

One of the main drawbacks to the Big Bang theory is that at the moment of the Big Bang, there is a singularity of zero volume and infinite energy. This is normally interpreted as the end of the physics as we know it and is why one expects quantum effects to become important and avoid the singularity. Research in loop quantum cosmology has been interpreted to show that a previously existing universe collapsed to a point where the quantum effects of gravity strongly are strongly repulsive to the point that the universe rebounds back out, forming a new branch.

I like the Big Bounce theory because it is very similar to parallel universe theory, in which the universe exists in varying forms. Another thing I like is that the Big Bounce is related to the Big Bang, but it also settles some of the issues associated with the Big Bang. In my opinion, the Big Bounce is a strong contender in the minds of cosmologists studying the origin of the universe. There is evidence that the Big Bounce could occur, which is not true with multiverse theory.

I do not agree with the Big Bounce in the idea it poses that the exact history of the universe would be repeated in each cycle. How would it be possible that such a huge explosion would create the same matter, over and over again? I believe that if the Big Bounce theory was true, then a different world would exist in each cycle. Another issue with the Big Bounce is that it states that the universe is infinitely old, since it repeatedly re-spawns. If the universe has no beginning, then was there would exist no first Big Bang, and therefore there was no first contraction of matter. The Big Bounce theory is quite confusing in this respect.

Everyone seems to love the idea of parallel universes, which is why I decided to conduct research on the topic. What I found was that within multiverse theory, there are different ideas. Here are the fundamental ideas:

As appealing as these theories may be, what they lack is actual experimental support. Until that hard proof is provided, the idea of parallel universes will still be considered simply a “thought” experiment.

The Big Bang theory is generally regarded as the best explanation for the origin, expansion, and ultimate fate of the universe. An alternative concept, plasma cosmology, was proposed in February, 1989, and here I am, a little over twenty-five years later, analyzing this theory.

Proponents of the plasma cosmology believe that hot electrically charged gases known as plasma, the form in which nearly all observable cosmic matter exists, have played a critical but so far unappreciated role in shaping the universe – stars, galaxies and all. They contend that electric and magnetic forces of plasmas provided the framework and much of the power, along with gravity, to organize matter into galaxies and other large structures seen today. The universe of plasma cosmology has existed forever, without a beginning and with no end in sight.

The Big Bang, by contrast, assumes gravity is the dominant shaping force and rests squarely on Einstein’s interpetation of gravity in his general theory of relativity. In this model, the universe began at a single point in one explosive moment as much as 20 billion years ago and has been expanding steadily ever since. Depending on how much mass there is, it will continue to expand forever, dissipating into virtual nothingness, or eventually reverse itself and collapse in a ”big crunch.”

I do not agree with the idea of plasma cosmology, because, in my eyes, it is not entirely innovative or mind blowing; scientists have not thought of an entirely new way to view the universe; instead, they have taken the idea of the Big Bang and changed two things about it: the dominant shaping force of the universe and the age of the universe. Yes, I agree that to change these two factors create a new theory, but not a thoughtful one. I suppose what I am saying is that plasma cosmology does not deserve the attention it received in the late 1980s and early 1990s. What plasma cosmology does is that it takes two ideas that already exist and combines them to form a “novel” theory.

Following this cynical line of thinking, I believe that the articles that write of plasma cosmology are entirely biased. When I searched the writers of these articles, I found that they have little to no experience in science, let alone cosmology. I believe that journalists in 1989 just took the idea of plasma cosmology as is, just to sell a few more copies of their respective newspaper. I believe that plasma cosmology is neither novel nor innovative, and it doesn’t explain the universe any better than the Big Bang theory does.

Anew theory has been proposed by cosmologists, which states that the shape of the universe might be slightly more complicated than astronomers have previous presumed. Rather than being infinite in all directions, as the most fashionable theory suggests, the universe could be radically smaller in one direction than the others. As a result it may be even be shaped like a doughnut (I am only calling it “Doughnut Theory” because the name sounds appealing).

These cosmologists have collected their data from a new map of the Universe that has been developed using heat patterns recorded by NASA satellites. In principle, in an infinite universe, the waves in the cosmic fireball should appear randomly around the sky at all sizes. But, according to the new map, there seems to be a limit to the size of the waves, with none extending more than 60 degrees across the sky. The effect was first noted as a puzzle in the satellite data, according to Dr. Gary Hinshaw, an astronomer at the Goddard Space Flight Center and a member of the Wilkinson probe team, and now seems confirmed.

”The fact that there appears to be an angular cutoff hints at a special distance scale in the universe,” Dr. Hinshaw said.

Another analysis of the new map suggests that there is a special direction, as well as a special scale in the universe. While reanalyzing the Wilkinson data to eliminate radio noise from stars and our own galaxy, Dr. Tegmark, Dr. Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, also at Pennsylvania and married to Dr. Tegmark, and Dr. Andrew J. S. Hamilton of the University of Colorado have discovered that the universe appears lumpier in one direction through space than it does in another. When they combed finer variations out of the map, the remaining large-scale variations formed a line across the sky.

The reason that I love Doughnut Theory is that it challenges the commonly held belief that the universe is infinitely large. Doughnut Theory provides another line of thinking when it comes to the size of the universe; whoever said that the universe had an infinite volume? Doughnut Theory has hard scientific evidence as support, which is definitely a positive for me.

Think about it like this: thousands of years ago, no one questioned the fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth; it was a fact. However, when curious astronomers began to design an use scientific instruments, they observed that the Earth, in fact, revolved around the Sun, and this idea caused chaos in society. I see the aforementioned cosmologists as the “curious astronomers”; both set out to disprove a commonly held belief. Perhaps, in a thousand years, it will be proven that the universe has a finite volume.

Another reason that I like Doughnut Theory is that it fits well with my ideas on Bubble Universes. Bubble Universes are an idea within the overarching multiverse theory. In Bubble Universes, the entire universe is divided into sections known as bubbles, and these bubbles contain their own laws of physics. Since each bubble contains its own scientific fact, life inside each bubble is a result of the actions of the individualized science. It seems to me that the doughnut that our solar system resides in could in fact represent a bubble, which means that other bubbles would also be doughnuts (who knows, they could be different shapes, as well).

In “A Brief History of Time,” I have reason to believe that Stephen Hawking exhibits bias in his beliefs on the origin of the Universe. While reading this piece, keep in mind that I absolutely adore Hawking and believe that theoretical physics wouldn’t be where it is today without his work. That said, let me explore the bias in his book.

In his book “A Brief History of Time”, Hawking appears to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe. However, in his more recent book, “The Grand Design”, Hawking writes that new theories show that a creator is “not necessary.” “The Grand Design” sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the Universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

“The fact that we are human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our Universe is a great triumph,” Hawking says.

Hawking says that the first blow to Newton’s belief that the Universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. ”That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings,” he writes.

Hawking’s bias lies in his condition; as most people are aware, since the age of 21, he has had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a motor neurone disease that has almost entirely paralyzed him; he communicates through a speech generating device. The reason I believe that Hawking is biased is because over his lifetime, he may have developed some hatred toward God, for making him the way he is. Following this line of thinking, this would have to mean that Hawking does believe in God, it is just that he refuses to give God credit for an occurrence as beautiful as the creation of the Universe.

Personally, it appears that whilst battling this disease, Hawking’s respect for God has depreciated. In “The Grand Design”, Hawking definitely expressed this disrespect. He challenges the idea of a creator with his own scientific theories, and completely tosses out the idea that God played a role in Creation. Therefore, I believe that “The Grand Design” is heavily biased and should be read with an analytical mind. In my opinion, the idea of “spontaneous creation” has a weak case; sure, matter on a minor scale may be created from a collision of particles, but where did these particles come from? Did they just appear out of nowhere? Based on what I have learned in school, I know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and this is the main problem with trying to prove ideas as radical as those of Stephen Hawking. Hawking’s ideas often contradict what we have been taught in school, which causes disbelief in the minds of many.