Donut Theory of the Universe Proven

Astronomers have confirmed that the universe has a big hole in the middle and is, for all practical purposes, a giant donut.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082400600.html

Comments

[renton]

i think the teory can be bent and or estimathions could make the thought of many thing wrong . i am looking for a person to email me about some theorys

[Xavier]

i know you posted this some days ago but i just came across this short story written by Isaac Asimov back in the 50s that relates to your donut theory of the universe. here's a link to it.

http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

[Julia]

A physicist friend of mine has been developing a similar theory. However, because he lives in Quebec, he calls it "The Big Beigne Theory". Beigne means donut in French. He also has a theory called "Schroedinger's Donuts" if you're interested.

[Matthew Kovich]

You f*cker.

I always knew you were right. This makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

granted hole --> donut is quite a leap, but still...

[Airor]

Unfortunately it may turn out that lifeforms may, in fact, not be Donuts.

http://www.amazon.com/LifeCode-Theory-Biological-Self-Organization/dp/0976406004/
Lifecode:The Theory of Biological Self Organization

Seems to be a book about the theory of Donut evolution.

The reviews on this book are hilarious.

[Mike Peter Reed]

wheels within wheels, doughnuts within doughnuts.

[Dave Oblad]

I won't mention the obvious astronomical logic leap from Void to Donut.. Oh wait.. I just did.. As Homer Simpson would say "Is there nothing a donut can't do?"

But, this recent observation does lend greater credibility to my pet theory about the universe being a big sphere of a solid vacuum. That the bubbles (matter) is being forced out to the surface. Hence, all matter is pushed out to the surface and appears to be an expanding universe, when in fact, it's not getting any larger, just a greater density of matter inside the outer shell is accumulating. Like a big ball of water (the vacuum) pushing bubbles (matter) to the surface. No dark matter, just internal pressure. Of course, this would mean that near the center of the sphere, there would be a big void of bubbles (matter). So the end of the universe will be when all matter is smushed against the inside of a giant round egg-like object. Folks usually ask what's on the other side (outside) of this shell. I tell them it's non-existence. Few get that.. Oh well.. Funny Blog Scott, but has interesting astronomical consequences. Best from Dave :^)

[it's me]

I love the arguments people make when you are just trying to have some fun, they makes me giggle.
DMD!
(Dance, monkey, dance!)

[Tortuga]

If the universe was doughnut shaped then light would travel with the shape of space so you wouldn't be able to see the hole or pass through it. So that is just an empty part of the universe the universe which is oddly bigger than most other empty parts.

[Joe]

That's one of the stupidest arguments you've ever made Scott. I know you didn't make too much of a case about it, but still. This says nothing about the universe being a donut. It simply says that the universe has areas without much matter. If the Universe was a donut, it would have donut shaped space-time, and there wouldn't even be a void in which matter could "not-exist". The universe would just loop back on itself.

[Cassi]

There's a difference between a universe that is homotopic (topographically equivalent) to a donut and one that has space lacking stuff. When you say you think the universe is donut-shaped, which case do you mean?

I'm sure with 100-odd comments someone has pointed this out, but I'm not going to read through to find out.

The question of the universe's curvature (the first case) is actually a very interesting one. If the universe *is* in fact donut shaped (places of positive and negative curvature), that has all sorts of reprocussions. For example, the existance of wormholes is contingent on non-zero spacetime curvature.

Unfortunately, astrophysicists are currently of the opinion that while there may be little bends and bumps do to the presence of mass, spacetime is essentially flat. But who knows? If existance really is just your program, then I'll bet you'll be proved right in the end.

[MadMonk]

If this giant hole is 5-6 BILLION light years away, that means that the radiation we view to 5-6 BILLION years to reach your most powerful instruments. Wouldn't one think that things might have changed a lot since then?

[Robert Gbison]

I thought your doughnut hole was higher dimentional. This hole is more like a sprinkle on the doughnut.

[jim]

Well, this doughnut configuration has weird effects: I posted something and it came up under Ilia's name. I guess Ilia must be labelled "Jim." How do you do Ilia?

[BoltBait]

...and Homer Simpson rejoices!

Woo Hoo!!

Mmmm... donut.

[Venky]

Damn. I just wanted to blog about it. But then i think lets see what scott has blogged about.. And then i see this.. Now it isnt nice to be a second person to tell about the same thing. Especially when it is about donuts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6962185.stm

[Chris]

Scott,

Someone (I suspect it may have been you, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'm not going to commit to it) once commented on the old 'black box' joke, where the comedian asserts that they should have made the entire plane out of the stuff.

They (you?) said that it made you realise that this was a joke entirely based on the ignorance of both the comedian and the audience. It wasn't funny, it was just idiotic.

Unfortunately, this gag falls into the same category. There is a significant difference between your 'theory' and what has actually been discovered. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see why - one is talking about the structure of space-time itself, while the other is just talking about the stuff in it.

This is only funny or intelligent if the audience/comedian either doesn't know, or pretends not to know these things.

It's a gag that relies entirely on ignorance.

[the man in the trout mask]

David Maga - true,scientists didn't make up that stuff falls to the ground,they observed it - what they did make up was the concept of gravity - they decided upon the why,gave it a name,assigned properties to it and wrapped it up in a neat package to be filed under "solved",and,of course,once a case is "solved" there is no need for further investigation that might uncover some embarassing truth.

[Real Live Girl]

Are you sure we're not just staring at a bellybutton?

[Phoenyx]

Wait a second here - IIRC your theory is that our 3+1 dimensional space landscape exists on a toroidally-shaped "plane" of the 4th dimension, and that we are traveling along the toroid's surface... If that's true, there's no way we'd be able to "see" the hole in the toroid - it exists in a higher order.

Not that I'm trying to debate against your theory - I agree with it for the most part (with the exception that the "donut" only has one hole.) I just think that your cognitive dissonance is leading you to mistake an empty lot in the universe as a 4th-dimensional landscape feature.

[Harris Hocker]

From Wall Street: Krispy Kreme stock doubled today on news that it was not only the favorite doughnut in the universe, but that the universe was, in fact, modeled after it.

Amid rumors of an impending hostile takeover of Dunkin' Donuts, Krispy Kreme's CEO commented, "Well, America may run on Dunkin', but the universe is a doughnut--and we are that doughnut."

A Dunkin' Donuts representative, who asked to remain anonymous, countered, "His brain is obviously creme-filled. The hole must be in his head."

[Ilia]

I'm amused by the ammount of people that feel they need to show you wrong as if you actually believe that to be actual proof of your theory. I'm sure that you are too.

[jim]

I think there's just a big black hole somewhere this side of the "void." It is sucking in all the light that would have reached us. It must be relatively close to use, as the void appears so huge.

On the doughnut theory: why do people get confused about doughnuts? There would be no point in describing a structure at shaped like a jam doughnut. Maybe you should start talking about bagel-shaped.

Anyway, all this pastry analogy is making me hungry. I was in Paris last week, and I keep thinking of Paul's Tarte aux Pommes or creme brulee.

[David Maga]

"What is scientific "proof"?
I develop and/or propose a theory,then to test the validity, or otherwise,of said theory I measure it against existing rules and criteria which I and my ilk have previously declared to be correct and true!"

Um...no. You test it by measuring it against existing rules and criteria which you have OBSERVED to be true. Big difference. Scientists didn't just make up that stuff falls to the ground, for example. They observed it.

[Bob Dole]

Ya'll. He's kidding. COME. ON!