Every now and then I get an e-mail that makes me feel optimistic about the future of humanity. Last week, a 10-year old sent me a fan letter. I verified his age with his father and got permission to reprint it here.
Remember, he’s ten.
Dear Mr. Scott Raymond Adams,
I am a 10-year-old boy who is an avid fan of your comic series, Dilbert. I know that it has achieved immense fame by the fact that it is shown in over 1600 newspapers around the world (at least, that was the way it was the last time I checked). I still want to know if the Dogbert's New Ruling Class (DNRC) newsletter is still available for new subscribers. I really wish to subscribe, even though it is only tri- or quad-annually, because it seems like it's better to have a regular update about your works and some random stories about people who send e-mails to you than to have to wait for the next book.
Now that I'm done with a proper introduction, I'll move on to more important matters. I like all of your books, but I'm especially intrigued with your philosophical works, God's Debris and its sequel, The Religion War. I like the way that you can exploit Occam's (I hope I spelled that right) Razor to the extent that it sounds refreshing and new, and yet doesn't seem like you're insane. I know that there's a warning in the introduction/prologue of God's Debris about how the ideas in the book are powerful and are not suitable for people under 14. I think that that is complete mish-mash, because, as you said in Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, people know what to expect in a book. You (probably) won't get sued or ridiculed because somebody's religious parents found out that their children doubt their beliefs now because of something in a book. Actually, the law protects you from that kind of stuff because of the first amendment, which says that everybody has the right to practice freedom of religion, unless it is designed to hurt others, like a cult. You definitely aren't gathering a cult (are you?) right now, so you're completely free to do whatever you want in a book.
However, and this may sound contradicting to what I said in the last paragraph, the ideas in that book are extremely powerful. I wonder if you could incorporate hypnosis into a book, because it seems like you, a trained hypnotist, did. I was completely and totally transfixed as I read those books. The best part is, your (or rather, the Avatar's) explanation of the universe completely makes sense because we can't judge god! That is the one thing that keeps your idea alive! You simply don't know what god thinks like because he is another being, totally different from human beings.
There is only 1 counter to your idea of the universe, and that is if there is an omnipotent god, he would still need something to create him. In a sense, that other entity is the real god, and the one that we worship is only a subordinate. Then, that entity would need another thing to create it, and so it would span infinitely through lesser and greater. The same thing is true about the shape of the universe. I believe that the universe is finite, because if it was infinite, it would have to travel faster than the speed of light and that would rip a hole in the space-time continuum and so would suck all light outside of the universe at infinite speeds as well, forming a huge counter-vacuum that would make the universe uninhabitable because every shred of matter that formed would be sucked outside the universe through the hole in the space-time continuum and cause the universe to oscillate at, again, infinite speeds between infinity and nothing. I could bore you all day with my talks about the universe and all of that uncertain stuff, and I know that you need the whole day to write back to all to your e-mails and draw your comics.
I am an atheist, but my Grandmother is a Christian and my Grandfather is a Buddhist. That is why I could adapt so easily to the idea that god is really only probability and matter. It makes perfect sense!
I have some last questions for you. I would be extremely pleased if you could answer them for me in the e-mail that you (might!) send back. They are as follows:
• Is it true that you have involuntary muscle spasms in your drawing hand?
• Is it true that you once had speaking problems?
• In Pleasanton, California, is it true that you own a restaurant named Stacey's Café ? If so, please note that I lived there before and so would like directions to the place.
• Do you really believe that affirmations can make you achieve your goals, no matter how impossible they are?
Thank you for your time taken reading this e-mail.
Bobby [name withheld]
P.S. Get Google everything. It's better and more hassle-free. I have the Google Taskbar for my laptop and i can open every single thing that you could imagine from it, including the daily strip for Dilbert.
---- end of e-mail ----
In the future, a small group of people will be inventing the breakthrough technologies of tomorrow, discovering new cures for diseases, solving global warming, creating great works of literature, and ensuring the safety of the human race.
You just met one of them.
Thanks for sharing
Posted by: Doodee | January 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Wait, how about some answers to the questions at the end of the email?!
Reposted for emphasis:
• Is it true that you have involuntary muscle spasms in your drawing hand?
• Is it true that you once had speaking problems?
• In Pleasanton, California, is it true that you own a restaurant named Stacey's Café ? If so, please note that I lived there before and so would like directions to the place.
• Do you really believe that affirmations can make you achieve your goals, no matter how impossible they are?
Posted by: eshlong | September 13, 2007 at 09:12 AM
It appears to me as though bobby is a puppet. Sure he can say things about the universe, but it is just as plausible that he learned them from somewhere else. As for the google questions I.E., why didnt he just look up staceys cafe, thats more like making conversation in a letter. He could have looked it up, but he would like a reply from Scott. As well, anyone can learn a big vocabulary. Im sure that if bobby has intelligent parents, then he will talk like them. If he were to happen to use a small vocabulary and say his thoughts simpler, then he would seem a lot more like the average 10 year old. I acted like that when i was his age, just not as coherent. Also, from my expierience, people like him even out with age, he will become more human, (compassionate, caring) see the world in shades of grey as opposed to black and white, and become more and more conditioned to the world. His life would be something like the novel "1984", in that no matter how different you are, and how much you try to stay that way, in the end you realize that it doesnt actualy matter.
Posted by: Mason | August 21, 2007 at 10:43 AM
So usually you will only be able to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time which makes it easier for someone using Occam's razor to debate against instead of having to explain all the evidence away.
Posted by: home design | August 14, 2007 at 01:24 AM
As I write this I am beaming, as this is is one of the best things I have ever heard. I am sixteen years old, and have often thought I was unique in my thoughts, which were very similar when I was that age and have continued to develop. The knowledge that there are others out there like me is a heart-warming thought, and as you say indicates hope for the future. I very much wish I could meet with this gifted youngster, and I am very glad you have decided to share this message with us.
Posted by: James | August 13, 2007 at 02:46 PM
The loopholes pointed out in the 4th paragraph can easily be solved.
The first loophole would be that the universe cannot be infinite without ripping a hole in the space time continuum and instantly suck out all the light. However, space is nothing, so the universe can go on forever, because in doing so, it doesnt necessarily mean more matter.
The second loophole is that something needed to have created God, and something needs to have created that being etc.. However, if God is omnipotent, couldn't he have created himself?
An obvious flaw in this theorie would be that no more omnipotent beings have shown up since creation. This flaw could be explained in four ways.
The first way would be to say that there can only be one omnipotent being. However, there is no way to prove this, or disprove this.
The second explanation would be that multiple omnipotent beings have created themselves. However, they each have created a different universe. The multiverse would be the end product.
The third possible explanation is that multiple omnipotent beings have created themselves in our universe, and that multiple omnipotent beings cancel each other out. This would explain the lack of recent prophets or appearances of God.
The final possible explanation would be that there are multiple omnipotent beings all existing in our universe. This explanation explains the amount of religions in our world.
Although it is impressive that the letter was written by a ten year old, it is no better then what an adult of average IQ could write. I am sure that Bobby will grow up to be an excellent thinker, Scott has exaggerated when complimenting him in the end of the article.
P.S. How did I do? I'm 13.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 13, 2007 at 09:08 AM
He could simply use Google to check the spelling he was not sure on for Occam's Razor. Google was referenced in the letter.
As a life-long astrophysicist student, there were quite a few flaws with a lot of elementry level concepts missing in his post.
Posted by: Gimble | August 09, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I have an 11-year-old son in a gifted program, and he writes JUST like Bobby - big words and ideas, occasionally awkward sentence structure and a lot of gratuitous parenthetical statements. Oh, yeah, and some showing off - no doubt about it.
Agrajag, the "universe oscillation thing" was in Discover magazine a year or two ago. I'll bet you any money that's where Bobby learned about it.
And for those who doubt a gifted kid's future ability to find people to have sex with, well, where do they think gifted kids come from? Gifted parents, of course. Yeah, I'm bragging. But my MIT-graduate husband and I get plenty of sex, thanks.
Posted by: KAK | August 07, 2007 at 08:59 PM
This may have already been suggested, but look into this movie link that I've added, its for a movie called "The night listener". Its one of Robin Williams' "serious" movies, but this situation really reminds me of that movie.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0448075/
Posted by: Jason | August 07, 2007 at 07:57 AM
1) Most tecnologocal breakthroughs come in wartime. War is a great motivator for invention.
2) The cure for all diseases is death
3) Global warming doesn't require a solution, just adjustment.
4) Great literature requires some dialectic.
5) Safety will arise in peace out of war.
Now we can all go back to sleep. thank you.
Posted by: Noah Vaile | August 07, 2007 at 07:21 AM
It's a ad for Google Taskbar duh. The "father" was probably the manager of the marketing department, "Oh yah, yah - he is 10 years old, me and .. Margaret are so pround of him. DID YOU GET GOOGLE TASKBAR YET?!"
Posted by: NW | August 07, 2007 at 03:17 AM
Can we read your reply to that email?
Posted by: Sam | August 07, 2007 at 12:50 AM
If you ever try to argue with someone that 9/11 was an inside job, you'll probably get the phrase "Occam's razor" thrown back at you to explain away the evidence you present. Occam's razor is the logical principal that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, or when it's put in its "simplest" terms: the simplest explanation is the best one.
For example:
Conspiracy question: "Why did our military stand down and why were all those war games going on the day of the attacks?"
Occam's razor answer: "The military wasn't ordered to stand down, they were just caught off guard and the military practices all the time, so having a war game going on shouldn't be too surprising."
CQ: "Why were all of the four planes only about 25% full of capacity?"
OR: "The hijackers choose flights with the fewest passengers, so they would be easier for them to control."
CQ: "How did the towers completely collapse to the ground at free-fall speed when the fires weren't even hot enough to melt the steel?"
OR: "The planes crashing into them caused structural damage and the jet fuel fires didn't have to melt the steel, but only needed to weaken them which caused the trusses to give and the weight of the top section caused each floor to pancake down on each other at a high rate of speed."
CQ: "How was Hani Hanjour able to fly a Boeing 757 like an experienced jet fighter pilot into the Pentagon when his flight instructors said his flying skills sucked?"
OR: "Crashing a plane is not very hard to do. Taking off and landing a plane is the hard part and none of the hijackers were training to do that."
CQ: "Why is there no plane at the Pentagon, but all the passenger's remains were supposedly recovered there?"
OR: "The plane virtually disintegrated upon impact, but there were few parts that survived which are seen in photos and the passengers were identified by their DNA which only small amounts are needed to do so."
Notice how each question seems easily answered by using the principal of Occam's razor. People who use this principal are at an advantage because:
Some events, such as 9/11, have a lot of evidence surrounding it, so usually you will only be able to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time which makes it easier for someone using Occam's razor to debate against instead of having to explain all the evidence away.
Some evidence can be complicated, so Occam's razor can be an easy way out of trying to explain away something that is complicated.
The official 9/11 story itself is very simple (19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into our buildings because they hate our freedoms.), so that fits with Occam's razor perfectly.
Now notice how Occam's razor is basically explaining things as being a coincidence too. Yes coincidences do happen and the bigger the event, the more likely you will find more coincidences. However, each time you add on another coincidence, the odds get greater and greater that they can all still be just a coincidence (unless you think like a coincidence theorist). And remember, the flip-side of a coincidence is a conspiracy:
Coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Conspiracy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Well 9/11 doesn't just have a few coincidences surrounding it, it has TONS of coincidences surrounding it. So far I've found over 200 coincidences surrounding 9/11 with the help of a lot of great websites out there and some coincidences by themselves seem too coincidental to believe they're just a coincidence.
So how can one explain how an event, such as 9/11, can have so many coincidences surrounding it?
"Simple" (and ironically): Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation for there being so many coincidences surrounding 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy!
Case solved.
Posted by: James M. Blanchard | August 06, 2007 at 08:56 PM
If you ever try to argue with someone that 9/11 was an inside job, you'll probably get the phrase "Occam's razor" thrown back at you to explain away the evidence you present. Occam's razor is the logical principal that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, or when it's put in its "simplest" terms: the simplest explanation is the best one.
For example:
Conspiracy question: "Why did our military stand down and why were all those war games going on the day of the attacks?"
Occam's razor answer: "The military wasn't ordered to stand down, they were just caught off guard and the military practices all the time, so having a war game going on shouldn't be too surprising."
CQ: "Why were all of the four planes only about 25% full of capacity?"
OR: "The hijackers choose flights with the fewest passengers, so they would be easier for them to control."
CQ: "How did the towers completely collapse to the ground at free-fall speed when the fires weren't even hot enough to melt the steel?"
OR: "The planes crashing into them caused structural damage and the jet fuel fires didn't have to melt the steel, but only needed to weaken them which caused the trusses to give and the weight of the top section caused each floor to pancake down on each other at a high rate of speed."
CQ: "How was Hani Hanjour able to fly a Boeing 757 like an experienced jet fighter pilot into the Pentagon when his flight instructors said his flying skills sucked?"
OR: "Crashing a plane is not very hard to do. Taking off and landing a plane is the hard part and none of the hijackers were training to do that."
CQ: "Why is there no plane at the Pentagon, but all the passenger's remains were supposedly recovered there?"
OR: "The plane virtually disintegrated upon impact, but there were few parts that survived which are seen in photos and the passengers were identified by their DNA which only small amounts are needed to do so."
Notice how each question seems easily answered by using the principal of Occam's razor. People who use this principal are at an advantage because:
Some events, such as 9/11, have a lot of evidence surrounding it, so usually you will only be able to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time which makes it easier for someone using Occam's razor to debate against instead of having to explain all the evidence away.
Some evidence can be complicated, so Occam's razor can be an easy way out of trying to explain away something that is complicated.
The official 9/11 story itself is very simple (19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into our buildings because they hate our freedoms.), so that fits with Occam's razor perfectly.
Now notice how Occam's razor is basically explaining things as being a coincidence too. Yes coincidences do happen and the bigger the event, the more likely you will find more coincidences. However, each time you add on another coincidence, the odds get greater and greater that they can all still be just a coincidence (unless you think like a coincidence theorist). And remember, the flip-side of a coincidence is a conspiracy:
Coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Conspiracy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Well 9/11 doesn't just have a few coincidences surrounding it, it has TONS of coincidences surrounding it. So far I've found over 200 coincidences surrounding 9/11 with the help of a lot of great websites out there and some coincidences by themselves seem too coincidental to believe they're just a coincidence.
So how can one explain how an event, such as 9/11, can have so many coincidences surrounding it?
"Simple" (and ironically): Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation for there being so many coincidences surrounding 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy!
Case solved.
Posted by: James M. Blanchard | August 06, 2007 at 08:55 PM
If you ever try to argue with someone that 9/11 was an inside job, you'll probably get the phrase "Occam's razor" thrown back at you to explain away the evidence you present. Occam's razor is the logical principal that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, or when it's put in its "simplest" terms: the simplest explanation is the best one.
For example:
Conspiracy question: "Why did our military stand down and why were all those war games going on the day of the attacks?"
Occam's razor answer: "The military wasn't ordered to stand down, they were just caught off guard and the military practices all the time, so having a war game going on shouldn't be too surprising."
CQ: "Why were all of the four planes only about 25% full of capacity?"
OR: "The hijackers choose flights with the fewest passengers, so they would be easier for them to control."
CQ: "How did the towers completely collapse to the ground at free-fall speed when the fires weren't even hot enough to melt the steel?"
OR: "The planes crashing into them caused structural damage and the jet fuel fires didn't have to melt the steel, but only needed to weaken them which caused the trusses to give and the weight of the top section caused each floor to pancake down on each other at a high rate of speed."
CQ: "How was Hani Hanjour able to fly a Boeing 757 like an experienced jet fighter pilot into the Pentagon when his flight instructors said his flying skills sucked?"
OR: "Crashing a plane is not very hard to do. Taking off and landing a plane is the hard part and none of the hijackers were training to do that."
CQ: "Why is there no plane at the Pentagon, but all the passenger's remains were supposedly recovered there?"
OR: "The plane virtually disintegrated upon impact, but there were few parts that survived which are seen in photos and the passengers were identified by their DNA which only small amounts are needed to do so."
Notice how each question seems easily answered by using the principal of Occam's razor. People who use this principal are at an advantage because:
Some events, such as 9/11, have a lot of evidence surrounding it, so usually you will only be able to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time which makes it easier for someone using Occam's razor to debate against instead of having to explain all the evidence away.
Some evidence can be complicated, so Occam's razor can be an easy way out of trying to explain away something that is complicated.
The official 9/11 story itself is very simple (19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into our buildings because they hate our freedoms.), so that fits with Occam's razor perfectly.
Now notice how Occam's razor is basically explaining things as being a coincidence too. Yes coincidences do happen and the bigger the event, the more likely you will find more coincidences. However, each time you add on another coincidence, the odds get greater and greater that they can all still be just a coincidence (unless you think like a coincidence theorist). And remember, the flip-side of a coincidence is a conspiracy:
Coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Conspiracy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Well 9/11 doesn't just have a few coincidences surrounding it, it has TONS of coincidences surrounding it. So far I've found over 200 coincidences surrounding 9/11 with the help of a lot of great websites out there and some coincidences by themselves seem too coincidental to believe they're just a coincidence.
So how can one explain how an event, such as 9/11, can have so many coincidences surrounding it?
"Simple" (and ironically): Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation for there being so many coincidences surrounding 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy!
Case solved.
Posted by: James M. Blanchard | August 06, 2007 at 08:55 PM
If you ever try to argue with someone that 9/11 was an inside job, you'll probably get the phrase "Occam's razor" thrown back at you to explain away the evidence you present. Occam's razor is the logical principal that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, or when it's put in its "simplest" terms: the simplest explanation is the best one.
For example:
Conspiracy question: "Why did our military stand down and why were all those war games going on the day of the attacks?"
Occam's razor answer: "The military wasn't ordered to stand down, they were just caught off guard and the military practices all the time, so having a war game going on shouldn't be too surprising."
CQ: "Why were all of the four planes only about 25% full of capacity?"
OR: "The hijackers choose flights with the fewest passengers, so they would be easier for them to control."
CQ: "How did the towers completely collapse to the ground at free-fall speed when the fires weren't even hot enough to melt the steel?"
OR: "The planes crashing into them caused structural damage and the jet fuel fires didn't have to melt the steel, but only needed to weaken them which caused the trusses to give and the weight of the top section caused each floor to pancake down on each other at a high rate of speed."
CQ: "How was Hani Hanjour able to fly a Boeing 757 like an experienced jet fighter pilot into the Pentagon when his flight instructors said his flying skills sucked?"
OR: "Crashing a plane is not very hard to do. Taking off and landing a plane is the hard part and none of the hijackers were training to do that."
CQ: "Why is there no plane at the Pentagon, but all the passenger's remains were supposedly recovered there?"
OR: "The plane virtually disintegrated upon impact, but there were few parts that survived which are seen in photos and the passengers were identified by their DNA which only small amounts are needed to do so."
Notice how each question seems easily answered by using the principal of Occam's razor. People who use this principal are at an advantage because:
Some events, such as 9/11, have a lot of evidence surrounding it, so usually you will only be able to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time which makes it easier for someone using Occam's razor to debate against instead of having to explain all the evidence away.
Some evidence can be complicated, so Occam's razor can be an easy way out of trying to explain away something that is complicated.
The official 9/11 story itself is very simple (19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into our buildings because they hate our freedoms.), so that fits with Occam's razor perfectly.
Now notice how Occam's razor is basically explaining things as being a coincidence too. Yes coincidences do happen and the bigger the event, the more likely you will find more coincidences. However, each time you add on another coincidence, the odds get greater and greater that they can all still be just a coincidence (unless you think like a coincidence theorist). And remember, the flip-side of a coincidence is a conspiracy:
Coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Conspiracy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Well 9/11 doesn't just have a few coincidences surrounding it, it has TONS of coincidences surrounding it. So far I've found over 200 coincidences surrounding 9/11 with the help of a lot of great websites out there and some coincidences by themselves seem too coincidental to believe they're just a coincidence.
So how can one explain how an event, such as 9/11, can have so many coincidences surrounding it?
"Simple" (and ironically): Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation for there being so many coincidences surrounding 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy!
Case solved.
Posted by: James M. Blanchard | August 06, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Scott,
I think a letter of this quality from a 10 year old would be extremely rare, but certainly not impossible. A lot of the people crying hoax haven't thought about what Bobby Fischer, or Mozart, or any number of historical geniuses could do when they were 10.
It makes sense that he IS 10, because while asking the right questions and barking up the right tree... he hasn't gotten to the point of realizing that other folks have probably asked that question too.
The true shame is that his grade school teachers probably don't understand that he needs to be reading Aristotle's Physics next instead of the mealy mouthed crap he is probably getting in English class.
First causes, the unmoved mover... are all talked about by Aristotle in depth... a lot of people who aren't 10 know this :)
It is very impressive that he can see the problem with a cause-effect system at such an early age though - that rocks.
Hopefully his dad has some of the good genes and can position him for some upgrades in terms of education. Give him a place where he can thrive please :)
Posted by: E | August 06, 2007 at 08:20 AM
I wish Bobby luck - I hope he fulfills the promise shown by his letter.
But as a couple other people mentioned, there are a lot of detours in life. My best friend's son had taught himself to read and write in hieroglyphics by age 4, but now he's a bipolar teen whose ambition is to open strip joints. And the only person to get better grades them I did in 3rd grade was a friend named Susan. By 6th grade she was a cheerleader hanging out with the cool kids, by 9th she'd dropped out of school, and by the time I was a sophmore in college, she'd had 3 children and was divorced.
I believe Bobby is a nerdy, 10 year old brainiac, and I hope he stays that way!
Posted by: Diana W | August 06, 2007 at 07:54 AM
Sounds like a real-life Little Man Tate. He's probably not the only 10 year old out there who's going to make a noticable difference one day, but glad he wrote you and that you shared it with us.
Posted by: Real Live Girl | August 06, 2007 at 07:41 AM
Ten or not 10, interesting question. At age 10, I was trying to talk my Christian friends out of their misguided beliefs, reading the New York Times review of books for fun and exploring Buddhism. I think it is plausible, though unlikely, that Bobby wrote this letter unassisted.
If he did: Your best defense in a fight, Bobby, is the "crazy" method. Don't try punching; grab your opponent's throat and go for the eyes, screaming in a made-up language at the same time. Eventually they'll get the idea and leave you alone.
Don't worry about the girls, either; you'll have plenty of girlfriends later on; become utterly disillusioned with the American educational system and drop out of school; have a long and fruitful career temping and eventually write the great American novel. No worries.
Posted by: proscriptus | August 06, 2007 at 07:36 AM
The kid was ten, if he was older, he'd have used more periods. Sadly, he probably gets marked off for that in school and the teacher ignores the maturity of his writing.
If he is only ten, sure he'll probably be a industry leader in whatever he does, but then again, he'll become a thirty-something that never had a childhood. Seriously, a ten year old being an aetheist is a little unsettling, most ten year olds still believe in Santa. So this kid is heading to either an Ivory Tower, or a Clock Tower, its a thin line.
Posted by: Joshua | August 06, 2007 at 07:13 AM
Definitely Asian.
Posted by: Phil | August 06, 2007 at 07:05 AM
A wonderful letter! Thank you for sharing it.
Bobby-
Your view of the universe is very interesting, but I would ask you to consider that a expanding Universe is expanding in all directions and everywhere. As such, much of the Universe would not be visible to us by the nature that the total distance between our observation and the light sources is expanding at a cumulative rate greater than the speed of light.
No energy or mass can over come that much red shift so the night sky would be in an expanding universe and is in fact mostly black.
In a finite Universe, the night sky would have to be brightly lit by the stars and dark matter (planets and dust), which would have become so hot it would glow continually.
If this topic interests you, I would recommend reading Stephen Hawking's books. He's very good at writing cosmology books that are understandable and not terribly burdened with calculus and terminology.
Posted by: Jorrath Zek | August 06, 2007 at 06:59 AM
I was ten year old, not so long ago.
This doesn't surprise me, but it is nice to read.
Posted by: Matthew Kovich | August 06, 2007 at 06:55 AM
A 10 year old did not write this, sorry.
Posted by: Tom | August 06, 2007 at 06:41 AM