The geeky webcomic UserFriendly has a panel today using the idea that observing the Universe hastens its death, as I briefly discussed last week (actually I pointed to a blog post by Pamela Gay which debunks it). It’ll be fun to see where the artist takes this idea.
And yes, I just made up a word, cosmortology. It means causing the death of the Universe. Or studying such a death. I think it’s a perfectly cromulent word. I just wish I had thought of it before turning in my manuscript for my book; it would have fit perfectly with Chapter 9. 
December 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke’s classic short story, which includes what I think is the best punch line in all of SF.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Sheesh! “Nine Billion Names of God”
December 4th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Wouldn’t killing the universe be cosmocide? Just a thought.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Killing the universe should be cosmocide.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:41 am
You know… this is a blog about astronomy, not grammar. This recent trend of making up new words or attempting to justify new uses of old words is very worrying.
Rather than posting controversial definitions and terms, you should stick to what you do best, and what people come here for, astronomy.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hey Redx, grammar is a perfectly cromulent topic! (you crank)
December 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am
You can still make changes, right BA? I mean, you’re not on your final already, are you?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:06 am
All I have to say is, I like the Tick calendar in the background.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Everybody should read what the physicist John Baez has to say about this. Quick summary: first, the bulk of the paper had nothing to do with the whole cosmortology business, and was a technical discussion of quantum field theory as applied to cosmology. Second,
Third, the quantum Zeno effect involves preventing a system from changing state by observing it. Therefore, observing the dark-energy content of the Universe might well keep our Universe around longer, if it does anything at all.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Ooh, thanks, Ad Hominid — I hadn’t read that one in a while and had forgotten the punch line. It gave me a nice little shiver.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
and what people come here for, astronomy.
Years ago I came here to get info for debunking the many conspiracy theories being propagated around my office.
Now I come as much to read the comments as the articles themselves.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
This blog is not about grammar? Holy crap, Phil, you veered “off topic” for two seconds to come up with a word related to astronomy. What the hell were you thinking? Good thing Redx was here to shine the light on your path so you could remember what you have a blog for.
Keep coming up with the interesting words, it’s one of the many reasons I read you everyday. Have to embiggen my vocabulary somehow…
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I love the word.
In return you can use one of mine: fumblementalist
December 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
— You know… this is a blog about astronomy, not grammar.
Geez, lighten up. It’s Christmas! LIGHTEN UP, DAMMIT! LIGHTEN UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP! AAAAA! AAAAAA!
[end Sam Kinnison mode]
— This recent trend of making up new words
OK. No more new words. We’ll revert all language to the early Holocene.
Grunt. Ugh. Grunt grunt grunt ugh oog grunt. Ugh grunt, grunt (spit) howl ugh ugh grunt- grunt grunt ugh grunt.
So there!
Oops! I mean grunt ugh!
— or attempting to justify new uses of old words is very worrying.
Well now you’re just being abaft. What a prithee!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
— Have to embiggen my vocabulary somehow…
Have you tried Viagra? Wait… how exactly are you using the word “vocabulary?”
December 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I love folks that appreciate irony, and catch onto things context. Context like semi-weekly rashes of complaints about political content.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Redx, FWIW, I knew you were kidding.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Cosmortology is indeed a very cromulent word.
> Killing the universe should be cosmocide.
Yes, but studying the death of the universe should be cosmortology. It’s the difference between homicide and mortology, if mortology existed. Instead, there is instead thanatology, which is somewhat more philosophical.
Still, I vote for Illudium Q-38 space modulators as being our best chance for cosmocide.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Also, another sudden thought.
If it’s anthropoGENIC global warming, why would it be anthropoCENTRIC cosmortology? Scientifically investigating the death of the universe as centered around humanity, or its effects centered around humanity? Hmm, that makes sense.
AntropoCENTRIC cosmortology, anthropoGENIC cosmocide.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Quiet_Desperation says: “Well now you’re just being abaft. What a prithee!”
I think your comments are running athwartship!
- Jack
December 4th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Once, walking around the theory floor at SLAC, I found a folder titled: “Scientific Eschatology”. It was empty.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Whoever came up with the above theory belongs at the same conventions as ID’ers– they don’t have a clue of what’s up. Quantum Mechanics is great, with many-times proven predictive ability. Quantum Theory on the other hand, the theory that supposedly “explains” why quantum mechanics is valid, is 100% BS (like the above theory).
This is my opinion, was Einstein’s opinion as well as Richard Feynman’s, one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics. My favorite of his quotes is “I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Theory/ Mechanicsâ€. The point is that these guys above, should be considered the “laughing stock” of the decade. More than lol, a hysterically stupid, insane theory.
forrest underscore forrest at netzero dot net
December 5th, 2007 at 1:50 am
The idea is bunk, but Greg Egan made a great book out of it:
http://www.amazon.com/Quarantine-Greg-Egan/dp/0061054232
(Note that this predates the current hubbub by a decade.)
December 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
[...] Via: Bad Astronomy Blog » UserFriendly buys into anthropocentric cosmortology [...]