back to article Dark matter: Good news, everyone! We've found ... NOTHING AT ALL

The most sensitive dark-matter detector ever built has failed to detect any dark matter. It's not yet a problem for the instrument, the LUX Dark Matter Collaboration that The Register described here and here. What it might mean is, in an echo of the kind of iterative narrowing-down that characterised the hunt for the Higgs- …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Dave 52

    What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found? Are there any alternative models of the universe that explain the missing mass?

    1. Denarius Silver badge
      Meh

      perhaps dark matter/energy is cosmological philogiston

      There still may be unknown physics, the Tevatrons final runs had an interesting energy anomaly, but the steady no-shows of dark matter suggest that Carmelli should be considered. His cosmology calculations requires no missing anything while matching quite well with observations, recent checks on fundamental constants being stable and relativity. Just cope with a 5 dimensional universe. Oh, and dropping a philosophical assumption that the universe is homogeneous.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: perhaps dark matter/energy is cosmological philogiston

        There's also MOND (Modified Netwonian Dynamics): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND

        1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

          Re: perhaps dark matter/energy is cosmological philogiston

          Netwonian?

          Is that a Google conspiracy against physics?

        2. magindville

          Re: perhaps dark matter/energy is cosmological philogiston

          I think you meant to say "Modified Newtonian Dianetics", but that means you have to believe in L Ron Hubbard. Hey, maybe that's what they're doing at CERN... it's just a Large Head Ron Collider

      2. Chemist

        Re: perhaps dark matter/energy is cosmological philogiston

        As a chemist can I say phlogiston not philogiston unless you're really trying to incorporate philosophy into it

    2. Richard 126

      Electrical model of the universe

      There is an electrical model of the universe that doesn't require dark matter. It assumes that gravity is relatively unimportant in holding the universe together and that the main forces are electrical / electo-magnetic. Hence no need for the missing mass required by the gravity model. The predictions of the electric universe theory seem to be true but it is regarded as very much a fringe science as everyone KNOWS that the universe is held together by gravity. This latest finding throws a little more support towards the electric universe model and away from traditional astrophysics.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: Electrical model of the universe

        There is an electrical model of the universe that doesn't require dark matter.

        Unfortunately it resides in crank universe and it firmly intends to stay there. It seems to be pretty much at odds with things that one can see in a telescope. In a positivist science, this is generally a Bad Thing. I won't even mention websites promoting it that look like something out of geocities. I think it's mainly made up by electrical engineers afraid of an Einstein mass/energy tensor letting fly.

        1. sabroni Silver badge
          Unhappy

          @ Destroy all monsters

          >> Unfortunately it resides in crank universe and it firmly intends to stay there. <<

          >> I won't even mention websites promoting it that look like something out of geocities. <<

          Ah, this would be the name calling and style criticising bit of the "scientific debate". Good to see so many upvotes for this fantastic bit of reasoning.....

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Holmes

            Re: @ Destroy all monsters

            Ah, this would be the name calling and style criticising bit of the "scientific debate". Good to see so many upvotes for this fantastic bit of reasoning.....

            Thank you for the expectation that I would have enough time and energy to seriously dissect an ALTERNATE EXPLANATION OF THE MATRIXLIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING in El Reg reader's forum.

            People interested in learning more about the (non) controversy are invited to apply Google to the problem but to stay within the bounds of what common sense tells them about the websites they visit. There are also "books".

            In particular, the following information may be of help when you encounter Tim The Enchanter and his Electric Staff:

            Martin Gardner’s Signs of a Crank

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @ Destroy all monsters

              Well you're operating on a particularly low level today, now aren't you?

              "Thank you for the expectation that I would have enough time and energy to seriously dissect an ALTERNATE EXPLANATION OF THE MATRIXLIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING in El Reg reader's forum."

              If you're going to whine about downvotes and criticism, don't post.

              1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
                Paris Hilton

                Re: @ Destroy all monsters

                I whined about downvotes and criticism?

                Metaphysically related, how can I whine about downvotes and criticism if I must not post?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @ Destroy all monsters

              > People interested in learning more about the (non) controversy are invited to apply Google to the problem but to stay within the bounds of what common sense tells them about the websites they visit.

              I think Einstein would suggest that "common sense" is a very bad indicator as to what is right and what is wrong.

              1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
                Headmaster

                Re: @ Destroy all monsters

                > I think Einstein would suggest that "common sense" is a very bad indicator as to what is right and what is wrong.

                I would think your would find out that this would not be so.

                Also, I meant "use common sense to detect crankery" not "use common sense to detect new physics". The former is generally >> easier than the latter.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @ Destroy all monsters

                  > Also, I meant "use common sense to detect crankery" not "use common sense to detect new physics". The former is generally >> easier than the latter.

                  You might want to suspend your skepticism for a moment and realise that a lot of what Einstein suggested initially was branded as "crank" science. If you used "common sense" to evaluate quantum physics, you would judge it "crank" and "fringe".

                  There is only one truth in science and that is the one that is demonstrated by repeatable experimental evidence.

                  Pardon me if we don't take your word for it.

              2. Tom 13

                Re: I think Einstein would suggest

                Interesting that you should bring him up in this exact context. There is some degree to which this search for the missing mass is his grandchild. If he hadn't added a cosmological constant to maintain a steady state universe to his theory, I don't think we'd see quite as much concern in this area. Yes, he did eventually recognize the mistake and name it his greatest error. But it does illuminate how tenaciously one can hold onto prejudices in science.

                At this point I'm willing to say the missing mass is the modern equivalent of the search for the ether was in his day. Yes, that does leave us with a deeper problem. But maybe to solve the deeper problem we have to accept that.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @ Destroy all monsters

              The carthorse called "Destroy All Monsters" has one gear, labelled "ad hominem" The sign of an intellectually uncertain position.

              Yes, there are cranks aplenty in fringe physics but your haste to label them all cranks and not address the arguments is very revealing, Sir.

          2. TheOtherHobbes

            Re: @ Destroy all monsters

            >Ah, this would be the name calling and style criticising bit of the "scientific debate".

            No, it would because most supporters are people (...I'm being polite) who wouldn't know peer review if had an a in it and grew on trees, and have no idea what a Lagrangian is.

            Hand-waving and storytelling are Not Science. They may pass the time and be entertaining, but you're gonna need some unexpected testable predictions if you want to be taken seriously, and a clean formalism would be a nice bonus.

            None of the above has ever appeared from EU corner. Nor is it likely to.

            The best you'll get is Argument by Analogy and some A level maths. Which are Not Science Either.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Electrical model of the universe

          It looks pretty interesting to me. It seems to be based on a plasma universe, which recognizes that 99.999% of the visible universe is in the plasma state. It is also known that plasma respond strongly to electromagnetic forces, which explains how the solar wind can accelerate away from the sun's gravitation field, and cosmic jets can even accelerate away from the immense gravitational fields of a black hole.

        3. magindville

          Re: Electrical model of the universe

          Let me guess... the electricity came from nothing.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Electrical model of the universe

        No it doesn't. It just suggests WiMPs may not exist or if they do are different than what was suggested. Or that the dark matter if it exists may be caused by Q-Balls, Axions or MaCHOs.

        Electric model / Plasma model cosmology was seriously fringe even when it was postulated far more so now given many of the questions it sought to answer were answered in other ways.

        "Hence no need for the missing mass required by the gravity model." -> Yeah but a need to find awful lotta amps.

        As for "everyone KNOWS that the universe is held together by gravity.", well yeah I think we are pretty certain, the solar system certainly seems to be, good use of caps to suggest condescension though.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Plasma model of the universe

          "As for "everyone KNOWS that the universe is held together by gravity.", well yeah I think we are pretty certain, the solar system certainly seems to be, good use of caps to suggest condescension though."

          The planets in the solar system are not plasma, but solid objects, which are affected by gravity, Plasma is influenced strongly by electromagnetic forces to the extent that gravity takes a back seat. Since 99.999% of the visible universe is in the plasma state, then 99.999% of the visible universe is more strongly affected by electromagnetic forces.

          1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: Plasma model of the universe

            "The planets in the solar system are not plasma, but solid objects, which are affected by gravity,"

            Or if you are feeling ultra-skeptical, consider the interplanetary probes that we have sent up. They were definitely not electrically charged when launched. If they became so during flight, it is a pretty awesome coincidence that their subsequent unplanned trajectories exactly match the ones that were engineered for them on the basis of a gravitational model of the solar system.

            To pick up where Destroy All Monsters left off, anyone seriously advocating a cosmology with electromagnetism taking the place of gravity is so far beyond the reach of reason that we frankly don't care if they are offended. It's not that we don't have time to knock down your theories with hard evidence. (I've just taken the time to knock down an electrical model of the solar system, for example.) It's that we don't have time to deal with the inevitable come-back, where they completely ignore the evidence against them, advance a new hypothesis, and start shouting about how science is just a religion and a grand conspiracy to hide the truth to protect their reputations.

            1. David Glasgow

              Re: Plasma model of the universe

              "... Exactly match the ones that were engineered for them on the basis of a gravitational model of the solar system."

              Well, that's not strictly correct, is it?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Electrical model of the universe

          > As for "everyone KNOWS that the universe is held together by gravity.", well yeah I think we are pretty certain, the solar system certainly seems to be, good use of caps to suggest condescension though.

          Well everyone "knows" that matter is held together by gravity. However, the universe is not necessarily made of matter.

      3. magindville

        Re: Electrical model of the universe

        oh... so you're the guy from Logan's Run?? I think his name was "Logan" but I could have the last two letters of his name wrong.

    3. Turtle

      Follow The Pioneers!

      "What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found?"

      They change the acronym to "NIMPs" - NON-Interacting Massive Particles - and spend the rest of their careers talking, writing, theorizing, and generally philosophizing about it, with no fear of ever being contradicted by experiment. String theorists have done any amount of pioneering work along these lines.

      1. streaky Silver badge

        Re: Follow The Pioneers!

        "with no fear of ever being contradicted by experiment"

        You're confusing science and religion there. Not for nothing but yes there are alternative theories - and there's also the possibility that we could just be measuring it wrong or missing some basic fact about lets say, gravity.

        When stuff goes "wrong" it's always the most exciting time in science because it gives people a chance to posit bold, entirely new theories. Imagine if you will if LHC had disproven the existence of the Higgs what sort of world we'd be living in today.

      2. Oh Homer
        Holmes

        Re: Follow The Pioneers!

        "Dark" Matter Theory: In a Nutshell

        x + y = z

        x = 1

        y = 1

        z = 3

        1 + 1 = 3 ?

        Conclusion:

        There is "d", the unknown, which we'll nickname "Dark Matter", such that:

        x + y + d = z

        However, "d" does not appear to exist, and we can't find it!

        At no point will we ever consider the possibility that our estimates of "x", "y" or "z" were simply wrong, or even that the underlying theory itself is wrong. Instead we'll promote the idea that an unknown value in a theoretical equation, which we've branded "Dark Matter", is in fact a real substance that we just haven't found yet.

        Welcome to that field of "research" known as the fantasy sciences.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Follow The Pioneers!

          "At no point will we ever consider the possibility that our estimates of "x", "y" or "z" were simply wrong, or even that the underlying theory itself is wrong."

          What makes you think that? It's not that they haven't considered such things, it's that dark matter is the simplest category of possibilities, and includes the possibility of x>1 as well as introducing a d. Dark matter isn't entirely instead of "the possibility that our estimates of "x", "y" or "z" were simply wrong, or even that the underlying theory itself is wrong." Do bear in mind that the very ideas of WIMPs and axions as dark matter rely on the Standard Model being incomplete, with some theories being incorrect in some such sense.

          1. Oh Homer
            Boffin

            "Incomplete theory"

            Playing with "incomplete theories" is more like a religion than science.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: "Incomplete theory"

              An odd criticism. All true scientific theories are by definition incomplete. And only God could write a complete theory of any thing as a complete theory of a given thing requires complete knowledge of everything which could conceivably have an effect on it.

              Granted, this is a philosophical argument not a scientific one. But I think it rather important as it gets at the heart of the scientific method and what science is.

    4. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
      Coat

      Even darker matter ;-)

      1. Professor Clifton Shallot

        "Even darker matter"

        Hotblack matter? Would that prove that the whole fabric of the space-time continuum is not merely curved, it is in fact totally bent?

    5. Steve T
      Facepalm

      They've made a basic error. They are looking for light being emitted from collisions between WIMPS and zenon.

      They should be looking for dark being emitted.

    6. plrndl

      @Dave 52

      What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found?

      They'll have to come up with another story to "help them secure further Department of Energy funding".

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: @Dave 52 .... and so beautifully simple it works so very well ....

        .... up to the point it be discovered by smarter folk. Then the Fun and Shenanigans and Greater IntelAIgent Games Begin for things are never to be the same again. And that be Future Progress Deliverable Today for Everyone Tomorrow with IT Takeovers and MainStreamMedia Makeovers in Reported Alternative Intelligent News Stories ..... Legitimate Registered Thin Client Tall Tales*

        What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found?

        They'll have to come up with another story to "help them secure further Department of Energy funding". .... plrndl Posted Thursday 31st October 2013 11:31 GMT

        Quite so, plrndl. That's what everything is about in paper fiat currency societies/dumb ignorant control systems.

        * PS ... Who do you think dreams up your news and views for tomorrow. Surely you cannot believe that things just happened today and nobody thought of them yesterday to make them happen and be a shared media reality for all who be aware of it today? That would be just too stupid and unbelievable for words and strictly for dummies and the birds methinks.

        That is how things are done in SMARTR Apps with Titanic Studio Bigger Picture Shows.

      2. chrisyu

        Re: @Dave 52

        switch to climate science?

    7. itzman
      Alien

      RE: What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found?

      Lewd suggestions aside, there are plenty of theories that can be concocted in the face of any facts.

      The dark matter is probably hiding deep in the oceans somewhere...;-)

      1. Euripides Pants Silver badge

        Re: RE: What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found?

        "The dark matter is probably hiding deep in the oceans somewhere...;-)"

        I don't think there's enough whale poo at the bottom of the ocean to explain all the missing mass.

    8. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Personally I've never been exactly convinced by the basic theories of dark matter and dark energy. To me it all feels too much like "we've made something invisible up to make one set of theories work". On the other hand, I'm not a theoretical physicist, I just (try to) talk semi-coherently with some of them.

      The good thing about science, is that when a theory is put forward and it's been shown to be almost certainly wrong, science can move on and try out a different theory. The bad thing about science is that's it's run by people and people have a habit of clinging onto incorrect theories for personal reasons (which are very understandable if you've spent 15 years of your life trying to "prove" something). Many of history's very eminent scientists have stuck rigidly to incorrect theories even while some of their other, well known, work was outstanding.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        As Max Planck put it: "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

      2. Allan George Dyer Silver badge

        The "we've made something invisible up to make one set of theories work" approach has been successful in the past, e.g. for the Periodic Table of the Elements, so I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.

        Obviously, as, no doubt, the scientists in this field are telling their funding committees, we need more data.

      3. sodium-light

        Yes that's all in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. We still haven't solved what to do about politically adept, scientifically useless, ageing academics.

    9. Rol Silver badge

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. Antimatter!

      So we've found the Higgs, therefore we have to consider the anti Higgs having anti gravity properties.

      I suggest antimatter resides at a particle level in intergalactic space and like normal matter wasn't totally annihilated in the Big Bang.

      The galaxies that look to be too light to keep themselves together, at the rate of spin we see, are in fact assisted by antimatter pushing back.

      I'll say no more, promise, as I've already bored the pants off enough Reg readers recently with this theory, but if you do want to see how my "logic" pans out, have a drift through some of my recent posts. (click on my name)

      1. bpfh Silver badge
        Boffin

        Higgs transfers mass, not gravity

        Higgs transfers mass (and mass = energy). An anti-higgs would transfer either negative mass (and therefore negative energy), and this could open up serious research into making stable wormholes.... but knowing how twisted quantum mechanics is, it would probably just end up transferring conventional mass to anti-particles.

        Negative mass would have some interesting anti gravity properties, but having that zipping around at a massive speed around in a gravity field would be very interesting... and would end up sitting in the lowest gravity areas of the current universe, so nowhere near us...

        1. magindville

          Re: Higgs transfers mass, not gravity

          Do you suppose that it's just coincidence, or is it fitting that "Higgs Boson" alludes to the fact that some doped up clown came up with the idea. That's what I think.

      2. adobob

        Rol, try and get a grasp of the basics of particle physics and what force carriers are before spluttering stuff like that huh? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/10/10/3607034.htm

    10. grelbr

      There are alternatives, but most of them are unattractive for various reasons. The two big categories are modifications of Einstein gravity at very long distances, and modifications of Newton dynamics at very low accelerations. It's fairly direct to see why either of these has an uphill battle.

    11. jbz

      If space-time itself contained vortices (perhaps as the residual effect of rapid expansion?), these curvatures would read to us as the gravitational field of a mass, though there was no actual mass. The flotsam that is galactic clusters would naturally collect in such whirlpools.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Pint

        > If space-time itself contained vortices

        Please provide an adequate mathematical model of this. We currently can barely get gravitational waves going, so don't put all your money on vortices...

    12. IDPaul

      Multiple Universes

      One alternative model suggested earlier is based upon the concept of the multiverse. If it is assumed that gravitational forces transcends multiple universes, then the gravitational force of outside universes could explain the accelerating expansion of our own.

    13. oolor

      Re: What do scientists do if dark matter can't be found?

      Evil Matter. It's like dark matter, but we can't see it, hear it, or speak of it.

      On a more practical note, a stupid question: Have they calculated the 'light' energy that has been emitted since the beginning of time, or the energy that is currently emitted (as measured by looking at the 'past' for more distant parts)? Could the missing 'mass' be in the form of light being currently transmitted through or even out of the universe? Add in the fact we don't know exactly the state of black holes further away as the light is - lets say historical.

    14. magindville

      Some people say we live in a computer, but that then begs the question of "What is outside of the computer?" My guess is that it's dark matter, but it doesn't really matter.

    15. Red Roofer

      Yes, there is an alternative explanation!

      Please see www.thunderbolts.info for a cogent theory of astrophysics from the perspective of plasma physics. No need to have "dark matter", "dark energy" and all the other fevered imaginings of theoretical mathematicians.

      When the data no longer fit the established theoretical matrix, then its time to reexamine the fundamental assumptions.

    16. Lusty

      "Are there any alternative models of the universe that explain the missing mass?"

      @Dave 52, yes the creationists have a quite popular theory. Of course that one only works if science becomes a voting system rather than relying on any kind of evidence :)

    17. t.est

      It's not just to explain the missing mass.

      It's the problem with a accelerating expansion of the universe, that our measurement of the redshifting we see from distant stars and galaxies.

      If dark energy doesn't exist, which it believed to exist due to dark matter, the whole bigbang theory is difficult to fit to the measurements of our reality.

      Then there are alternative theories on the cause to redshifting, whether correct or not it would be interesting to find out for sure. If there may be other reasons to redshifting than we know of, we can conclude that we don't even know if the universe is expanding or not.

      For more info google: plasma redshift.

      Unfortunately scientist who study this are not that popular, I however think this should be ruled out or proven before we do more assumptions on our models of the universe.

      If this turns out to be what causes the measured redshifting, we can throw away the whole big bang theory. That's probably the very reason to why so few scientists even want to touch on this subject as such a discovery would put all we think we know about the birth of the universe in the trashbin.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Electric Universe Pseudoscience?

        "For more info google: plasma redshift."

        Electric Universe pseudoscience, yes?

  2. MrDamage
    Joke

    Of course they cant find any WIMPS

    That's because the MACHOs kicked sand on them and covered them up.

    1. Martin Budden
      Joke

      Re: Of course they cant find any WIMPS

      Or possibly the WIMPs changed their appearance to blend in with the surrounding Xenon, like some kind of... wait for it... chameleon?

  3. Shugyosha
    Coat

    It'll be in the last place they look.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      +1 That statement has always bugged me. After all, why would you keep looking after you've found it?

      1. Graham Marsden
        Facepalm

        @AC

        A friend of mine has been known to look in a couple of other places *after* he's found something he was searching for, just so he can say that it *wasn't* in the last place he looked...

        1. Tom 13

          Re: @AC

          I resemble that remark!

          But in fairness, I only did it once and only for the LOLs.

      2. earl grey Silver badge
        Happy

        Simples

        You might actually find it somewhere else after you've found the first occurrence.

        1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

          Re: Simples

          so, Schrödinger's Car Keys?

      3. magindville

        can you guys come up with a new mask? It's Halloween for god's sake.

      4. cyborg
        Headmaster

        It's a mutated misphrasing

        It should be, "in the last place you *would * look," as in "look in the unusual places," although that's probably bad advice. One should use a binary search algorithm and divde up the room into increasingly smaller places as one eliminates sections.

  4. Don Jefe

    LUX Dark Matter Collaboration

    That's either the best band name ever, or the best super villain group name ever.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: LUX Dark Matter Collaboration

      > That's either the best band name ever, or the best super villain group name ever.

      I think they were on the ninja tune label in the 90's, I am pretty sure I have one of their albums somewhere.

    2. magindville

      Re: LUX Dark Matter Collaboration

      both and neither at the same time

  5. Winkypop Silver badge

    Look out!

    It's behind you.

    Where?

    There!

    Behind you!

    1. Elmer Phud
      Boffin

      Re: Look out!

      That particle is known as Pantomimo, it was discovered after further research in to Heisenbergs stuff, it is the one particle where the position is fixed but can never be seen unless you are some distance away from it. The usual detectors are small and sticky but very loud when they detect a Pantimimo though the experimenter will never, ever see it.

      It's all quantum these days, innit?

      1. James 36
        Coat

        Re: Look out!

        oh no it isnt !

        I know , mine is the one with the programme in the pocket, no need to push

  6. IHateWearingATie

    Much like the Higgs Boson...

    ... I really hope they don't find any potential dark matter. Much more fun to be had watching them make fundamental revisions to theories than proving they are right!

    1. Ian Yates

      Re: Much like the Higgs Boson...

      Was it Asimov who said something like "the best scientific discoveries are the ones that start with 'that's funny...'"?

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Much like the Higgs Boson...

        Yes, and this IS odd, which is good.

  7. lglethal Silver badge
    Joke

    Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

    Massive Experiment Fails to Find Anything, Wastes Millions of Tax Payer Money

    Queue outraged comments talking about homeless people, high taxes, and the wasteful nature of Scientific funding...

    And in America probably add something about God having created the universe, science is evil, and isnt this kitten cute?

    Thankfully we have the Reg to provide an intelligent review of the Boffins hard work...

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

      Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

      "And in America probably add something about God having created the universe"

      Yes, but HOW did he create the Universe eh? They never seem to want to answer that one. After all, they can't just say 'by Magic' now can they? :)

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

        I believe he made a massive bang....

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. monkeyfish

            Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

            At least with science we can admit mistakes & try again.

            Religion does not allow that luxury..

            I'd like to call FUD on that one, personally. Admittedly there is a vocal minority that still hang on the King James Bible (because 17th century English is Gods Own Language, don't cha know?). But most religious types I've met are capable of admitting they may be wrong, and go though various periods of doubt about it all quite regularly. Whereas I've met plenty of atheists that are really very dogmatic, and get quite shouty when you question the basis of their beliefs. Not much different to shouty religious types really. Thanks.

            1. Elmer Phud
              Alien

              Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

              " English is Gods Own Language"

              WBC will testify that Jesus spoke English.

            2. Don Jefe

              Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

              Religion is like any other large group in that there are intelligent, thoughtful there as well as blathering idiots. And like any other group the idiots are always loud and obnoxious and drown out the voices of reason (of which there are plenty).

              All the big religions are very simple in their core teachings, but the same shouty sorts who put people off of what is nothing more than a humanist philosophy are the same types of people responsible for the 3,000 different technicality based sub-churches that fall under the main headings (ex. Christianity: Roman or Greek Orthodox, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God of Prophecy with Signs Coming, et al) All are Christian but each little group was started by obnoxious, shouty people who want to twist a very simple and good thing into something that better suits their own small minds.

              It is all very unfortunate, best to just ignore the shouty ones.

              1. monkeyfish

                Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

                All are Christian but each little group was started by obnoxious, shouty people who want to twist a very simple and good thing into something that better suits their own small minds.

                Not to mention the modern ones that don't have a denomination written on the door for that very reason, but have accidentally created yet-another-denomination of churches without a denomination. Facepalm.

                I was surprised to only get 3 down-votes for the last comment, I came back with trepidation to see how many I got. It's almost as if we're having a sensible region/science debate. But I've probably jinxed it now.

                1. Don Jefe
                  Happy

                  Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

                  Religion is like sexual preference, there's no problem with it in and of itself. It's when people try to push theirs on others that problems arise.

                  I don't care one bit who/what/if people worship or have sex with. People aren't defined by their preferences in either on of those departments, they attempt to define themselves (and others) using those indicators and it is socially unacceptable, not very pious and it is creepy when other people attempt to force high level things like that on someone else.

                  As is the Internets way, it has grossly magnified the voices of those who could otherwise be easily avoided by simply leaving the asylum, but everybody's trapped 'here'. Having a sensible online discussion about any sensitive topic is difficult because the extremes of either 'side' start in before the discussion goes anywhere. For religion, the vocal atheists and the vocally religious are exactly the same, just loudmouth nutters with a point to prove. Which is incredibly funny because if either one actually examined what they are doing they should see that they are going against the core philosophies of their positions. They are both arguing about something they each believe doesn't exist. It's hilarious.

            3. This post has been deleted by its author

            4. cyborg
              FAIL

              Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?

              "Whereas I've met plenty of atheists that are really very dogmatic, and get quite shouty when you question the basis of their beliefs"

              The basis of the belief is that people who believe in gods are wrong. There's not really any dogma - that's just definitional. You're probably thinking of something else you're associating with that which isn't really relevant. Cat herding etc...

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?@cyborg

                "The basis of the belief is that people who believe in gods are wrong. There's not really any dogma - that's just definitional. "

                Err, no. The basis of the belief is that there is no God. The shoutiness comes in telling people they're wrong. I'd have to say your argument is a bit specious.

                1. cyborg
                  FAIL

                  Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh?@cyborg

                  "Err, no. The basis of the belief is that there is no God"

                  No, the basis is that people who believe in gods are wrong. Not that there is no "God" - because it's not exclusive to monthiestic Abrahamic concepts. It's really irrelevant as to whether or not such beings exist, it is enough that one does not have to believe the man in Oxford Circus shouting at the shoppers has any merit to his proclamations.

                  "The shoutiness comes in telling people they're wrong."

                  Um, no.

                  "I'd have to say your argument is a bit specious."

                  I'd have to say yours is a bit lacking in substance.

                  Just like supernatural divinities! *rimshot*

        2. itzman
          Boffin

          Re: but HOW did he create the Universe eh? (myths of the causal universe part I)

          Divine fart or cosmic w*nk. take your pick.,

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

        They'll accuse you of terrorism, not supporting the troops, being a secret muslim, and then burn you at the stake for asking those kind of questions.

      3. t.est

        Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

        No, why would they answer that.

        Magic would be something that is impossible. So weather you believe in a God or not would not change the situation not knowing how the universe is built, or more correctly "was" built in that case.

        Just because someone believes it was created does not automatically translate to they know the answers to how. For them science is used to learn how it's formed, just as it is for atheist. And just as every scientist don't agree with every other scientist on the subject they study you will find areas where those won't agree with each other. I don't think anyone religious or not claim to know everything.

        Here are my two cents in this topic, you may agree with me or not.

        The evolutionist believes basically that with a random series of events, likely or not over a infinite long period of time life has come to be and evolved to different beings. The claim is that with "infinite" time it's bout to happen somewhere somehow. Most of the event won't lead to anything, but in the infinite time the conditions will be just right for it to happen.

        Now there are many version of theists who have varying ideas of the creation. So let's not go to much into details of that, but consider their common factor that life and universe was created.

        What science could we apply to determine who are the non factual ones? Could we use some known science that both parties can agree upon. What about using mathematics as a scientific tool, rather than fight about each others different viewpoints?

        Now considering the evolutionist. Can a infinite series of random events bring life and in turn all the variety of live we see in the nature. I have a challenge for the skilled mathematicians. And I would love to see what result you/they come up with. I also have a little mathematical experiment that I've done myself and I think would be worthwhile for everyone to try them selves.

        So here is my challenge:

        If we would use a random text generator, to produce a text that would be identical to this comment I'm writing here now. And it would be truly random, so that even the length of each random generated "comment" also would be random, that is 0 is 0 and 1 would represent infinite length or "close to infinite length". And let's say you could produce 1 000 000 comments a second (feel free to suggest any other number here) . Statistically how long would it take to have produced at least one identical comment to this one. Keep in mind that each comment is not necessarily unique, each one needs to be randomly generated and duplicates are allowed.

        The reasoning behind this challenge is our DNA. We all know that our DNA holds the code for how we are built. But it's not just a random series of code. There are 4 "letters" to use, but the information in DNA is coded in sequences. In our bodies these DNA sequences can be triggered to on an of states.

        Now if the information that is found in our DNA and even in the most simple lifeforms have been generated by random events. We should be able to calculate a model for it. And this is what my challenge is about. Can we produce informations simple as this comment with a random text generator that produces text with a random length, well then maybe that is what actually happened with life, and information actually can be generated from random events.

        The objection often put forth here is that always where there is information stored, there have been intelligence behind it, and I personally can't see a flaw in that reasoning, but prove me and others wrong that it is indeed possible within at least the age of this universe.

        Now that is a calculation that would be pro evolution if successful.

        Now to a different math experiment that I've personally done. Today we are talking about that we are overpopulating this earth. And there are mathematical ways to calculate the population explosion.

        Apply the same calculation to when the first homosapiens where supposed to apear, and calculate how many we should be today.

        When you do that calculation you will notice that something is not right, and you realise we had an ice age, and other natural disasters that have had a global impact on the population.

        So do after that the same calculation from the time scientist consider us modern man, that is from recorded history etc about 10 000 years ago. And calculate how many of us should be alive today.

        This number will still be astronomical, so you realise you have to calculate for wars, illness as spanish flu, food shortages etc.

        Still when you start to kill a lot of people in your calculations the number will be astronomic. When was the ice age you soon start to think. Because you need to kill a lot of people in that calculation. No happy news here for that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age.

        You will notice that you will need a pretty recent global fatal catastrophe to kill a sufficient number of people in that calculation. You will realise that it need to have happened during our known documented history.

        So the big question is what happened and when? As the 7 billion we are today is way too few compared to the calculations you've just done ( I hope you did them well ).

        Now the popular science tells us not any such event has happened in our near history.

        Ok that is two calculations, purely mathematical. If you ponder a bit over them whatever conclusion you draw. I hope you realise that it's not as black n white many want's us to think it is. Some do not believe we were created, others do. We know that it's either but the what conclusion we draw is our own.

        To the question what happened to us in the history we can find something by looking at what is considered legends and stories by many. We see such documents from different isolated civilizations from all 6 continents and islands. Just to name a few, Kurnai in Australia, Chiriguano in Bolivia, Montagnais and Cree in Canada, Lolo in China, Masais in east Africa, Book of the Dead from Egypt, Eddas from Iceland, Kamar from India, legend of Nu-u from Hawai, Bahnar from Vietnam. The list goes on hundreds of legends, that fits quite well with that calculation. Needless to tell that it's also documented in a few religious books. And they all tell the same story with small variations.

        So the questions arise, when did man actually appear. If we aren't a result of a creator why are we so few. We should be trillions even more, and if not, we should have countless of records of global fatal events that basically kills most of us. They should have happened with the interval of just a few if not just a couple of thousand years. We have documented records that are considered more than 5000 years old.

        So who's right, can the math tell us that? Nope but it should tell us that we actually can't say for sure that one is wrong. It may help us to make up our own mind, but what ever conclusion you take someone will not agree, and they may very well have good reasons for why they think as they think.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

          I applaud your attempt to reason with those who reject attempts at reasoning. But this can be more simply stated, and despite their scientific faults, the Greeks actual did so.

          Science is physics. Religion is metaphysics. You can't use science to disprove metaphysics, which is what non-theists do.

          1. t.est

            Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

            The idea was that with science we can prove what some consider science to be false.

            If you actually did the second calculation, you would see that the belief that we being a result of million of years of random evolution is pretty non scientific. The numbers simply don't fit with our reality.

            I consider math, physics, biology, etc to be forms of science. I've come to the conclusion that the evolution theory has rather become a religion to atheists than pure science. You do find some scientific reasoning in it, but to a large part it's a conviction of that everything has become to be by randomization, with other words based on some sort of faith. And many of their claims can be refuted by science, if you just care enough to critically test the claims with known science forms, rather than just blindly follow.

            1. cyborg
              FAIL

              Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

              "but to a large part it's a conviction of that everything has become to be by randomization, with other words based on some sort of faith."

              No. Randomness provides entropy. for selection. Selection is the "faith" upon which evolution is built, not randomness. But no one argues against that because it's too obviously contrary to any sense to argue that better things aren't better so instead one argues that maximum entropy somehow doesn't provide maximum opportunities for information extraction contrary to what the mathematics says,.

              "I consider math, physics, biology, etc to be forms of science. "

              Then you do understand that biologists basically all agree that evolution is the underlying theory that makes sense of biological phenomena?

              "If you actually did the second calculation, you would see that the belief that we being a result of million of years of random evolution is pretty non scientific"

              Except for the science that's completely true.

              People who get hung up on the world "random" really ought to find out what randomness is some day.

              "And many of their claims can be refuted by science, if you just care enough to critically test the claims with known science forms, rather than just blindly follow."

              Yeah, sure. Please follow up with some stuff about irreducible complexity to complete. Given your previous argument:

              "If we would use a random text generator, to produce a text that would be identical to this comment I'm writing here now."

              Doesn't understand the very basics of what evolution actually is I am not expecting much.

            2. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

              @ t.est

              "you would see that the belief that we being a result of million of years of random evolution is pretty non scientific"

              Random? What is random about it? It isnt a spontaneous adjustment but a gradual adjustment over time. Viruses and bacteria are pretty good to see this because they have to modify (significantly for them) to survive.

              "I've come to the conclusion that the evolution theory has rather become a religion to atheists than pure science"

              It would need to be proved wrong or have a competing theory which is just as plausible. However the closest contenders seem to be various creator theories while still not justifying the creation of the creator. That is more random and spontaneous than evolution.

              You seem hung up on what you think is randomization and if someone told you that tell them they are wrong. Certain criteria had to exist for us to exist, but if you look backwards it is easy to fool yourself into believing it must be that way or that it had to be made for us. But that is the wrong way to look at it. Instead you look at possibility. What is the possibility of all these criteria? If there were 9 rocks 1 fireball and a bit of space it is unlikely (but possible). If there are (as there are) vast numbers of rocks with a lot of fireballs with a lot of space the chance is greater. But the chance of any life form existing jumps up. And we are just one life form which is very limited. There are much hardier creatures and bacteria than we are.

              Random is rubbish. Probability and possibility govern the universe around us. Even if you want to believe in some sort of intelligent creator it required a probability to exist and then a probability to make stuff or even to create us. Atheists believe in one less god than the rest because they see no need to add an extra highly unlikely variable to an already complicated and unlikely but yet existing universe. That extra variable provides no truth or answers of our world/universe. It tells us nothing about our existence. Science is working through the real physical world as it exists to understand the how and the why

              1. cyborg
                Boffin

                Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                "Random? What is random about it? It isnt a spontaneous adjustment but a gradual adjustment over time"

                It's a pretty standard "747 being built by a hurricane" argument that he demonstrates in his "produce my text randomly" argument not understanding the radical difference between having to produce a string randomly to match a predefined pattern and only having to produce and keep correct characters from that string over a period of time. Given a character set of 70 odd characters for alphanums and some punctuation in a comment the size he provided you have an excellent probability of hitting some of those characters randomly (1 in 70 for each character in fact) and if you get to keep all the hits then it really doesn't take very long at all until you get the exact text reproduced since anyone can clearly see that the string you're actually aiming to complete is going to get shorter each time (since you don't bother re-selecting what you've already got right).

                But you try explaining that and they'll go right back to the same old strawmen again in a different form.

                1. t.est

                  Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                  You have to start from somewhere.

                  If you claim that the first DNA came by adaptation. You actually give it godly attributes.

                  If you can produce that first living cell with it's first dna molecule without intelligence, you need to be able to do it by random events. Spontaneous in this case is just another word for random. If spontaneous isn't random it has a mind and something intelligent behind it that tells it to adapt in a certain way.

                  This is what you don't seem to understand, what they call spontaneous here refers to mutations, that all happen quite seldom but do happen. E.g. cancer cells are mutated cells and have gone through a spontaneous mutation. The evolutionists calls this event adaptation when it has a positive result. This actually has not been observed yet to happen, all observed mutations have so far been degeneration, that is have an negative effect on the organism, making it weaker, and you know natural selection takes care of the rest.

                  So yes, they all go back to that random statement, because that is what the whole evolution theory claims and builds upon. If you don't understand it, maybe you need to study it more carefully. It's mindless, has no goal, nor intelligence behind it.

                  You need to create that first life form by pure random events, else it wasn't random and therefore wasn't spontaneous.

                  1. cyborg
                    FAIL

                    Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                    " If spontaneous isn't random it has a mind and something intelligent behind it that tells it to adapt in a certain way."

                    So again you propose intelligent freezing?

                    Otherwise how could those water crystals *know* how to form those perfect cubes?

                    And this is why I say you don't *get* any of this. You only think of "random" as "literally anything goes!" If you applied the mathematics properly you'd get the proper results. But then if you did that you'd have to re-evaluate your beliefs. It doesn't look like you have that in you given you are regurgitating some of the classics on creationist misapplications of evidence and theory on population and evolution.

                    " If spontaneous isn't random it has a mind and something intelligent behind it"

                    And so a "mind" and "intelligence" are just things that either exist or not? There's no simpler underlying mechanism? They're fundamental building blocks of the universe? No. You can propose an infinite all-knowing being has done these things if you want but you're raising more questions than you're "answering" by saying there are magical bits of "intelligence" making things behave "just so" where they're completely black box systems that just do what they need to do - somehow.

                    "E.g. cancer cells are mutated cells and have gone through a spontaneous mutation. "

                    Which are not heritable and hence irrelevant to the evolution of species. Also does not understand the nature of the mutation nor of the cell. Cells go wrong all the time. Contrary to popular belief especially of those who see a grand-designer if there is such a thing it is a designer who only knows how to hack things together so they barely work and doesn't seem to have any overall coherent design vision.

                    "So yes, they all go back to that random statement, because that is what the whole evolution theory claims and builds upon. "

                    No. Evolution builds on selection. Randomness or its precise nature is irrelevant other than the seed for change upon which things can be selected. I know you will refuse to acknowledge this so this is just for the benefit of anyone else who may happen to be reading and gleaming something of use from this.

                    "If you don't understand it, maybe you need to study it more carefully."

                    If *you* don't understand it, maybe you need to study it more carefully. I understand it perfectly well.

                    "It's mindless, has no goal, nor intelligence behind it."

                    Yes. Exactly. And that's why things exist the way they do.

                    "You need to create that first life form by pure random events, else it wasn't random and therefore wasn't spontaneous."

                    I do not adhere to your notion of "pure random" in a universe with physical rules that are not arbitrary. It is not "pure random" that carbon atoms behave the way the do. It is not "pure random" that water behaves the way it does. It is not "pure random" that replicators that are better at replicating replicate more.

                    Third strike and out. Want to come up to the plate with an actual bat this time?

              2. t.est

                Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                "Random? What is random about it? It isnt a spontaneous adjustment but a gradual adjustment over time. Viruses and bacteria are pretty good to see this because they have to modify (significantly for them) to survive."

                Based on random mutations in the genes. First to have life you need genes to be coded, by non intelligence.

                So its based on random events. Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other. So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent.

                If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes. If you do that, you actually refer to evolution as the god. Or you realise that it has to be based on random events. This is though what many true evolutionists claim.

                1. cyborg
                  FAIL

                  Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                  "Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other."

                  So when water's structure becomes ordered when its temperature is reduced that is intelligent freezing?

                  "So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent."

                  False dichtonomy. Also leaves huge questions around what "intelligence" is.

                  "If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes."

                  I don't recognise what these "godly attributes" are.

                  "Or you realise that it has to be based on random events."

                  Why not try reading what I said? Randomness provides entropy for selection. The nature of randomness is entirely irrelevant. That's why deterministic genetic algorithms (as they must be if purely computed) are still effective. The worse the entropy - the apparent randomness - the harder it is for such an algorithm to efficiently naviagate a large solution space since the inherent bias will exclude options.

                  "This is though what many true evolutionists claim."

                  Oh, "true evolutionists".

                  "True evolutionists" understand that natural selection is the important point, not how the differences arise. The mere fact that there is differentation means certain things are *naturally* going to be more successful than other things. The statistical properties of the events that cause those differentations are not as important. It'd still work in an entirely deterministic universe - like the one a genetic algorithm would operate in.

                2. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                  @t.est

                  "Based on random mutations in the genes. First to have life you need genes to be coded, by non intelligence."

                  You seem stuck to the word random. What is random? Random is a possibility happening. If you have 99% you have 1% chance of something else. So a small possibility is unlikely at face value. But what about time? How long is there for this unlikely (in an instance) event to occur? Over enough time a 1 in 100 chance becomes highly likely. We dont breath in the correct quantities of oxygen and hydrogen to drink do we? Instead we use the combination which exists as water. But without water we do not exist. But who is making this water? Someone isnt, its a process of physics and chemistry. The majority of existence isnt intelligent (that we know of), so why would you jump to assume intelligence made things when things are needed to sustain the intelligence?

                  "So its based on random events. Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other. So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent."

                  What is the probability you will be hit by a london bus in new york? At this second probably very little. The possibility requires you to be in new york, the bus to be there, at the same time, in very similar space, with the physics of a collision. Now add time to the equation. Will you ever be in new york? Will a london bus ever be in new york? So on it goes. In your lifetime it is very unlikely but it is a possibility.

                  Expand that to infinite time. You dont age, you dont die, you continue. Even if the bus is phased out of service in 100yrs that is still 100 yrs of a single minute possibility. Now apply to a massive universe (lots of you's and buses). Its a crude explanation but I hope it helps.

                  "If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes."

                  What is a godly attribute? Success? Creation? Creation of what level? Error? Mistake? Probability? Chance?

                  The word godly is made up by people. Gods have been made up by people. Many gods have been made up by people. Because how can the moon go up or down without a being pushing it up and pushing it down?

          2. cyborg
            FAIL

            Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

            "Science is physics. Religion is metaphysics. You can't use science to disprove metaphysics, which is what non-theists do."

            Ummm, no. Religious claim about entirely testable phenomena do not get a metaphysical shielding I'm afraid just because you have proclaimed it is in a separate domain.

            Although please, do feel free to just argue that "god" is just some ontological preference you have. Fine, whatever. But t.est is not pleading that one should not use science to disprove "god" so don't pretend he is. He's making some bad strawmen out of evolution and some debunked population mathematics to fit a Judeo-Christian mythos. That is entirely disprovable I'm afraid regardless of whether or not the god of the Jews exists as a metaphysical concept or a real entity that chooses to only look metaphysical.

            1. t.est

              Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

              I wasn't pleading to use science to prove god, nor disprove god.

              I was pleading to use science to prove or disprove our theories about life and how it became to be. Please do the second calculation I proposed. Let us then discuss what is plausible.

              I've done it and I do see huge problems with million years of evolution. There problems way of the top with just 100k years. It doesn't take 100k years to produce 7 billion (7 000 000 000) people. Just to give you a figure. If you start from just one family, and each generation produces 3 kids that are fertile and reproduce. ( I'm generalizing and simplifying it a lot to make it fit into this comment, and in a proper time frame) it takes only 57 generations. If one generation is 40 years. That is only 2440 years. If take 100 years for each generation to reproduce it takes only 5700 years.

              Now we know that not every child reproduced nor in the same uniform amount. But we also know that families generally has been much larger that that family over the history. So it compensates to a large amount for the lost children. Now if each generation would only reproduce at a age of 200, 3 kids that would reproduce at the age of 200 additional 3 kids. It would only take 11400 years to reach 7 billion people.

              That we are a result of neandertals etc that lived so long ago simply don't fit real science. It's mathematically impossible.

              And i did refer to legends of non Jewish myths, true enough the story is found in the abrahamic religions to. But its by far not unique to them. I doubt that the people in Hawai had anything to do with christians or jews at all, or those in australia or in canada, etc etc.

              1. cyborg
                FAIL

                Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                "Please do the second calculation I proposed. Let us then discuss what is plausible."

                As explained if I did the second calculation you proposed then it would not be plausible that things on the planet would exists as they do by that mechanism.

                Fortunately I also explained why that is not like the mechanism that is actually proposed by evolution. Hence why I called it a strawman. Hence why I dismiss it. Because it's nonsense.

                "Now we know that not every child reproduced nor in the same uniform amount. But we also know that families generally has been much larger that that family over the history. So it compensates to a large amount for the lost children. Now if each generation would only reproduce at a age of 200, 3 kids that would reproduce at the age of 200 additional 3 kids. It would only take 11400 years to reach 7 billion people."

                So if we ignore all the things that tend to kill people before they breed and assume perfect exponential growth we can get to 7 billion people earlier. If we don't then we have to wait until medical technology and food resource technology improve enough to allow such growth. And if we look at population trends then what do you know? When these technologies improved the population growth exploded! It's almost as if there's some sort of, I don't know, causal link or something.

                I don't really understand why you expect me to just ignore important components of a calculation just so it'll fit your argument but it's not going to happen.

                "That we are a result of neandertals etc that lived so long ago simply don't fit real science. "

                No it doesn't but then I doubt you understand the point of "the tree of life". Not the one in the fictional garden mind.

                "And i did refer to legends of non Jewish myths, true enough the story is found in the abrahamic religions to. But its by far not unique to them. I doubt that the people in Hawai had anything to do with christians or jews at all, or those in australia or in canada, etc etc."

                Yeah, because when people who don't even know how to calculate the size of the Earth have a myth of a "great flood", where floods occur all over the world for a variety of reasons, we should just assume that they weren't actually ignorant of the things they were most likely ignorant and instead assume a global deluge and ignore what we have subsequently discovered. Sounds reasonable to me!

                You know many cultures also have myths about storms, lightning, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and so forth right? Am I supposed to conclude anything other than these people experienced things we know have happened and continue to happen to people living on this rock? No? I just take at face value their explanations that they'd angried up the volcano gods as well because they didn't sacrafice enough people or kill the left handers? Ok then: sounds perfectly reasonable.

    2. fandom Silver badge

      Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

      Why must political nuts turn everything into political drivel?

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

        "Why must political nuts turn everything into political drivel?"

        Like some particles they can only exist in conjunction with Sun/Mail/Faux.

        Both sides are necessary in a symbiotic relationship - without one the other cannot exist.

  8. Rustident Spaceniak
    Coat

    It would take quite an excited WIMP...

    to strike any of the particles in such an imposing object as a Xenon nucleus! And remember, being WIMPs they can't be excited. So there's your dilemma for you.

    Mine's the one with the Xenon flashlight in the pocket.

  9. sandman

    Don't be afraid of the dark

    With apologies to Pink Floyd...

    There is no dark matter really. Matter of fact it's all dark.

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

      You have a problem with IQ? ;-)

    2. itzman
      Mushroom

      Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

      The is no dark matter. In fact its all light.

      E = mc²

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

        We'll see about that.

      2. Don Jefe

        Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

        E = mc², sometimes. It's like the letter Y as a vowel, sometimes that is the case, sometimes it isn't.

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

          For those who are curious but as-yet-uneducated on this point, E=mc² is a special case of the general principle: E² = m²c⁴+p²c². (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation)

          For a massive particle at rest in your frame of reference, p=0 and so one term on the right drops out and you can take square roots.

          For a photon, which has no rest-mass but which is never at rest in any frame, the other term on the right-hand side drops out and you can again take square roots to obtain a second "special case".

          All of which, in passing, is why E=mc² cannot be applied to photons to "prove" that they have mass, as one of my friends once tried to tell me. I didn't have wikipedia to hand at the time and I don't suppose a quick lesson in 4-vectors would have made for a very interesting tea-time conversation, but it is nice to know that it is (now) there.

    3. jubtastic1

      Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

      I've often wondered how much energy has left the observable universe, where it went and what it's doing now. I mean the universe we see is defined by the energy coming at us, but assuming there was a Big Bang it stands to reason that a whole lot of energy went flying into the void where there was nothing to reflect it back at us, further, that's still happening, that there's still radiation blasting into the void across the universe.

      Is it simply lost forever? maybe it coalesces into a doughnut of energy that slowly contracts back in? or could it eventually swing back at us like solar flares on the surface of the sun? they all sound pretty bad, anyone know?

      1. Don Jefe
        Happy

        Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

        I really like the thought of an energy doughnut. Just sitting there, never going stale and waiting, just waiting for the 'chosen one' to come and eat it & take their seat on the Throne of Universal Dominion. Like the King Author story, but scaled up. And tastier.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "... a whole lot of energy went flying into the void "

        Google is your friend. Try "cosmic background radiation".

        1. jubtastic1
          Meh

          Re: cosmic background radiation

          That's not what I mean, imagine you're the most distant bit of matter from the center of the universe, you take your blaster and fire it directly away from the rest of the universe, into the void, there's nothing for that blast to hit, nothing to slow it down, it's not going to exit screen left and reenter screen right like pac man (I hope), so what happens to it? is the energy lost forever or could it loop back after an unimaginable length of time?

          Because It appears to me that the Universe has been blasting a shitload of energy out into the void ever since it got going, if it's lost forever then that doesn't sound sustainable*, whereas if 'space' turns out to be round then there's an awful big wave coming back at some point.

          * sustainable over iterations of universes, assuming the current universe is just the latest in a series of endless 'bounce' cycles, rather than just another ripple on the surface of a pond during a thunderstorm, I suppose all of the above is a possibility as well, a ripple in the ocean of a waterworld. This was so much easier when it was just turtles all the way down, maybe that's sort of true.

  10. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
    Pint

    Seven tonnes of xenon?

    They should combine the LUX's future seven tonnes of xenon with the LHC's great big power supply to make the largest flash tube, like, ever.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seven tonnes of xenon?

      " to make the largest flash tube, like, ever."

      That's what quasars are. None of this black hole and mass accretion disc nonsense, just a bunch of puzzled alien primitves who've all stumbled on the same method of looking for dark matter, and the wondered how big a flash they could make.

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Seven tonnes of xenon?

        Kids and their chemistry sets - eh?

        I dunno, in my day . . . .

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The experiment's paper suggests that the LUX data eliminates low-mass WIMP models in the 33 GeV range."

    Just as I predicted.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      I think you meant "Just as planned"

      (white fluffy cat stroke from a wheelchair-bound diminutive figure)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, not a Michelson-Morley moment yet?

    ...That's a drag...

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: So, not a Michelson-Morley moment yet?

      +1 for waiting since 1877 for a chance to use that!

      1. an it guy

        Re: So, not a Michelson-Morley moment yet?

        I was thinking the same thing. Michelson Morley came to mind with the 'we need to build an even more sensitive sensor' and rinse and repeat again until they had to give up when it was in the 6th decimal place that they were looking for a significant result

  13. Nameless Faceless Computer User

    The universe...

    The universe is just simulation. Stop taking it so seriously.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The universe...

      Yes, but if they crack the code they can fuck up the entire universe, not just one planet!

      1. itzman
        Coat

        Re: The universe...

        The material realist explores the precautionary principle.

        Right, so all there is is stuff, and consciousness is just ripples in stuff, and therefore what we think is actually changing the universe because it changes the ripples in stuff, which is all the universe is.

        Oh my god! everybody must stop thinking, because its changing the whole universe One stray thought in the rain forest of Brazil could cause a quasar to explode in an adjoining galaxy.!

        I wish I hadn't thought that.

        But I suppose, in a deterministic universe ruled by causality, it was bound to happen...

      2. Elmer Phud

        Re: The universe...

        "Yes, but if they crack the code they can fuck up the entire universe, not just one planet!"

        Nah, that's not fucking it up - it's just a mod.

        You can always reboot.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: The universe...

          I have some Downloadable Content for you. For a little fee. Just study this little pamphlet.

  14. MJI Silver badge

    I sort of wondered

    People mention multiple universes, could dark matter be that?

    My personal idea is that dark matter and dark energy are not actually there, but are the equivalents of an adjustment to make things fit. Basically that spacetime is not fully understood.

    But like most people I am waiting for the scientists to letus know.

    1. Rustident Spaceniak

      Re: I sort of wondered

      Yeah, but are we even sure we all live in the same universe?

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: I sort of wondered

        "I-I-I-daho

        I-I-I-daho

        Whoa, oh, oh, oh

        Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah

        Get out of that state

        Get out of that state

        You're living in your own Private Idaho

        Livin' in your own Private Idaho"

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: I sort of wondered

      ISTR a hypothesis that gravity is weak because it's "leaking in" from neighbouring universes/branes. There's a conceptual diagram here:

      https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-M3Z7HBllZys/T5JT-dGobZI/AAAAAAAAFIE/I_XJUA3M0pI/randall_750.jpg

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Chemist

        Re: I sort of wondered

        "Just a few hundred years ago the earth was the center of GOD's universe & was flat"

        A VERY common misconception, but not true.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I sort of wondered @Chemist

          "A VERY common misconception, but not true."

          Do you mean the bit about center and flat? I think he was pointing out the fact that the idea's been superseded. Or the few hundred years ago bit? Just not sure how to interpret what you're saying.

      2. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Flat Earth

        People have known since they first saw the horizon that the Earth is rouund(ish).

        Even cavemen!

        1. Alien8n Silver badge

          Re: Flat Earth

          There are some statues from Roman times where the Emperor is clearly standing with one foot on a globe representing the Earth. So yes, it has been known for a very long time.

          Although the true position is of course that the Earth is flat and it's elephants all the way down...

          1. Tom 13
            Windows

            Re: Flat Earth

            No it's not! It's Turtles you heathen!

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lots of un-plumbed physics which could imaginably explain this stuff

    The multiplication of entities which characterises dark matter & dark energy research makes me deeply suspicious.

    The general relativity version of the equivalence principle shows that acceleration and gravitational fields are equivalent only for points: in fact entanglement can create what amounts to a single entity which is spread over space.

    Tidal forces created by the curvature of space in the rotating galactic reference frame (a cousin of what you might have once called the "centrifugal force") will tend to collapse this entanglement by giving the particles different histories; going the other way in this equation therefore the entanglement will oppose the curvature of space.

    Therefore a perturbation of the gravitational interaction on a galactic scale, of the sort that people have been looking for.

    Please send my nobel prize by return of post, or an explanation of why this does not make sense.

    1. Tim Parker

      Re: Lots of un-plumbed physics which could imaginably explain this stuff

      "Please send my nobel prize by return of post, or an explanation of why this does not make sense."

      It's not even wrong.

  16. plrndl

    Stab in the dark

    The reason the detectors can't see the tiny flashes, is that they represent a new phenomenon that I name "dark light".

    Please send my nobel prize...

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: Stab in the dark

      Not good enough. I do think someone used this for the magnetic photon /quid vid/. Experiments sadly proved the absence of this this kind of matter-penetrating light.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stab in the dark

      William Gibson?

  17. itzman

    sounds as massively non intuitive as anything else in quantum cosmology.

    And if Obama can get a Nobel prize, why not you?

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: sounds as massively non intuitive as anything else in quantum cosmology.

      Because he doesn't have armed drones. In today's world you absolutely must have armed drones to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: sounds as massively non intuitive as anything else in quantum cosmology.

        But Kissinger just had a pen and a couple of genocides under his wing.

  18. Faye B
    Coat

    Much Ado About Nothing

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Emperor's New Clothes

    So because gravitational models of galaxies do not work a predicted (isn't that called "falsification"?), we make up something called dark matter, which is not only invisible, it isn't even made of ordinary matter. And to detect it, we have to find hypothetical WIMPs.

    The emperor's new clothes?

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: The Emperor's New Clothes

      @AC

      We can observe the reality but that only allows us to witness the event. To understand/predict that event through time (past and present) we need to model it. Models need to be based on known variables and if it works then we understand the witnessed event. If the model doesnt work then it needs an unknown such as dark matter(for example). This does not mean that dark matter exists or exists in an expected form but it fills the gap to make the model work. However to understand the event we need to then prove dark matter. As such the dark matter becomes the event, restart the process with dark matter as the event.

      It could be that dark matter exists. It could be that dark matter is purely a fudge that makes the predictions work (a working prediction matches observation) but turns out to be an unknown interaction/entity. As long as the prediction works we can claim a working model but not complete understanding of the event.

      This is why I find MMCC co2 theory funny. While the theory could possibly be correct it is not certain nor understood. The number of uncertain problems faced and the fact that the models dont work effectively disprove the models in their current forms.

      Out of interest you wouldnt have made your comment if WIMPs had been found. But it took scientific investigation to prove that WIMPs dont exist in the expected form.

  20. Grom_uk

    It's not there guys...

    Dark matter is needed to make the maths work for what we are observing.

    The maths makes assumptions (flat universe, etc..)

    Come on guys, the drawing board is calling.

    Let the whole dark matter, dark energy thing go, it's had it's time.

    Didn't Hawking say the universe was saddle shaped or something, how does the maths look for that?

    Why would the universe be flat and at rest, it just had a huge big bang, that we still do not know the cause of.

    What caused that could have left the universe in a right state.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: It's not there guys...

      Hawking doesn't say much really.

      For "Saddle Shaped" that's "Negative Overall Curvature", see Riemann Surfaces and General Relativity, in the 1920s or so. Experimentally, not detected at the present time; indeed the universe is pretty much at 0 intrinsic curvature. Why? Dunno, LOL!

  21. WalterAlter

    Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter and the entire money wheel circus is the product of academic delerium.

    Black holes have no basis in General Relativity or in Newton's theory.

    All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations

    actually contain no mass. A mass is simply inserted post hoc into the

    alleged solutions by sticking in Newton's expression for escape

    velocity. But this is entirely arbitrary and is done to satisfy

    Einstein's false claim that Ric = 0 describes his gravitational field

    "outside" a body such as a star. Newton's expression for escape

    velocity is an implicit two-body relation, but all alleged black hole

    'solutions' contain only one mass, the mass "outside" of which the

    gravitational allegedly exists. Einstein removes all material sources

    at the outset by setting his energy-momentum tensor to zero to get Ric

    = 0. In the next breath he reinstates the presence of a material

    source (a mass) by the deceitful words "outside a body such as a star,

    because he must have a mass to be the source, to be the star. But all

    the equations of Ric = 0 contain no material source terms. Not only

    that, de Sitter's cosmological static solution is acknowledged by

    Einstein and his followers to be entirely empty, hence de Sitter's

    'empty universe'. But de Sitter's static solution is for Ric = lambda

    g_{ij} where lambda is the so-called 'cosmological constant'. The

    energy-momentum tensor is zero here too. Thus a zero energy-momentum

    tensor both precludes and includes a material source (mass). This is

    impossible. Ric = 0 contains no matter by mathematical construction.

    de Sitter's empty universe contains no matter by mathematical

    construction. Thus General Relativity does not even predict the black

    hole at all. Newton's theory does not predict black holes either.

    Einstein's "outside" a body such as a star is doubletalk - utter

    nonsense.

    -Stephen Crothers

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      "Black holes have no basis in General Relativity..."

      Dear Plasma-Universe Colleague,

      Your paper has received all the attention that it deserved. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to write up a complete analysis of your doubtlessly well-reasoned ideas since my cat had a little accident and I needed cellulose-based material in a hurry. Rest assured, however, that further submissions on your part will be looked at with the same intellectual curiosity as your latest missive managed to elicit.

      Believe me always, yours faithfully,

      etc. etc.

  22. phil dude
    Pint

    thinking...

    Since the Earth turns on its axis, orbits the sun, which is orbiting the galactic centre, which is receding from all other galaxies.

    The upshot of this is that the space "we are in" is never the same. Ever.

    I wonder if from the point of the observer (us on Earth) is it possible that gigantic portions of the universe are not visible (receding too fast for us to see them), and yet still exact an influence on what we see?

    It is a fundamental assumption that the universe "here" is the same "there", but perhaps the definition of "here" is far too local. Perhaps the universe is split in to non-visible (now) but somehow interacting chunks?

    Hmmmm?

    P.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: thinking...

      I t is possible.

      The problem is finding a model that yields useful predictions and is testable. Pluspoints if it has a very compact beautiful mathematical formulation, which for some reason seems to be the preferred way of it.

      All the rest is metaphysics.

    2. Fred 4

      Re: thinking...

      yes and no.

      we can "see" a light/particle cone of ~13.7 billion lightyears. This is the "age" of the universe. This cone is all the material, from which there has been time since the inception of the universe, for light emitted from it to reach us.

      We can reasonably assume that the universe is not cone shaped, and there is more universe then we can see, but due to the limit of the speed of light we can not "see" this material.

      According to Relativity, as I understand, material that is outside of this light cone. (~13.7 billion year long cone which stretches from here -> Big Bang) can not affect us, nor can we affect it.

      However... as a thought experiment(?)

      We can imagine a particle Po (for Particle Outside) that is just outside of our light cone. There is material inside our light cone Pi (Particle Inside), where Po & Pi can interact.

      Pi can/does interact with us as it is inside our light cone.

      Po affects Pi.

      Po affect us 'by proxy' through Pi.

      I do not know how this is explained away, as I believe it is.

      1. phil dude
        Pint

        Re: thinking...

        i vaguely remember the "photon wavelength being stretched to infinity". I think B.Cox may have said that once...

        So if light is not visible because it has been stretched too far, perhaps whatever communicates gravity does not have the same effect? Volia, dark matter...;-)

        It would be nice if someone here could explain if the "missing" mass for which the search for WIMPs is directed, is it uniform? Does every piece of sky show it?

        The exciting thing here is, that there is clearly more cool physics for us to discover!!!

        P.

      2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: thinking...

        "We can imagine a particle Po (for Particle Outside) that is just outside of our light cone. There is material inside our light cone Pi (Particle Inside), where Po & Pi can interact.

        Pi can/does interact with us as it is inside our light cone.

        Po affects Pi.

        Po affect us 'by proxy' through Pi."

        Assume O is the observer's coordinates, T is the time lapsed since the beginning of the universe, c is c.

        |Po,Pi| + |Pi,O| >= |Po,O|

        If |Po,O| / c > T (which it is by your definition of Po), the signal from Pi, after it had been affected by Po, will not have enough time to reach O by the time of the observation.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: thinking...

      It is highly probable there are vast portions of the universe we don't see, although not because they are receding too fast for us to see them. That's sort of the whole point of Relativity: it doesn't matter how fast you are moving or what direction, the speed of light is constant for your medium.

      While theoretically there could be a discontinuous transition point for gravity, without evidence for it is seems a highly risky speculation. The fundamental basis of science is that a process that happens anywhere in the universe can be replicated somewhere else. While I see the argument to avoid anthropomorphism, trying to use that to offset the more critical scientific criteria is philosophically problematic. Moreover, while it could be argued that such a transition was beyond the solar boundary, the problem is with the red shifts themselves. Is not just that everything is receding from us. It is that the further away from us the object is the faster it is moving away from us and that rate increases along a smooth curve, not a segmented function.

      It is a fundamental unsolved problem of astronomy and cosmology, and has been since the red shift evidence was discovered. Given how badly it perplexed Einstein I doubt any of us Reg posters will find the answer.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dark Matter doesn't exist ..

    > The most sensitive dark matter detector ever built has failed to detect any dark matter.

    Dark Matter doesn't exist, the reason it is proposed is to explain the shape of galaxies and their dispersal through out the universe. A much simpler explanation is that gravity decays faster over large distances. As in time flows slower that farther away from a strong gravitational source.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Dark Matter doesn't exist ..

      <I<Dark Matter doesn't exist</i>

      A peremptory statement followed by utter FAIL because replacing "dark matter" would demand that gravity "decay" SLOWER over large distances.

      As in time flows slower that farther away from a strong gravitational source.

      Again, arse backwards. Also, it is "proper time" and it does not "flow" in any particular way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dark Matter doesn't exist ..

        > Also, it is "proper time" and it does not "flow" in any particular way.

        Excuse my typo ..

        As in time flows faster that farther away from a strong gravitational source .. eg. t is a variable ...

        -------

        Anyway .. nevermind .. lets listen to a good toon ...

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNantlznCA

  24. NathanOB

    How do I get a career doing nothing on a government paycheck? Probably just memorize some big words to sound smart and call it basic research, because no business would waste its time with me. :)

    Seriously, this stuff is as ignorant as a flat world theory, when you can see a curve on the horizon. Back a 1000 years ago somebody probably used a little bit of sense to know that the world wasn't flat, and there was more to the story. Same today with bosom particles, dark matter, string theory, ect... Aren't these technically hypothesis not theories?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      I dunno, are you not technically a nincompoop?

      > bosom particles

      Right.

      1. Florida1920
        Paris Hilton

        > bosom particles

        Dunno about the universe, but I'll bet his S.O. is flat.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Perhaps you should had also memorized who was Erastothenes and when he lived.

  25. achilles9000

    I've always suspected dark matter is residual gravity from a parallel universe...

    too much?

  26. NickFun

    Hooray! We have found nothing! Let's see if we can spend a couple million more and still find nothing! Then we will keep spending money until we find...NOTHING!!!

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      You jelly?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Xenon

    All these posts and nobody spotting that the sole object of this experiment was obviously to achieve the utter scientific coolness of having so much cold Xenon in one place.

    At parties: "Yes, I've got a third of a tonne of liquid xenon. At -100C. How cool is that? Very cool indeed."

    1. Wintermute
      Boffin

      Re: Xenon

      Xenon melts at -111.8°C and boils at -108°C. For the next experiment, the test apparatus needs to regulate the temperature of 300kg of the element for 300 days within a band of 3.8°C. That's impressive. Who – like me – wants photos of the apparatus itself?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Xenon

        The liquid xenon is in contact with gaseous xenon under pressure. The lab (Gran Sasso) say on their website it is -100C at 2 bar, which of course gives them a much bigger window between the liquid state and freezing. Your comment would only be valid if the apparatus was at STP.

  28. arctic_haze Silver badge
    Holmes

    A simple explanation of the result

    The reason we cannot discover dark matter is that its particles are like Schrodinger's cats.

    They have not yet decided if they exist or not.

  29. ecofeco Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Damn you El Reg!!

    Now I can't get...... that voice out of my head.

    (I actually love that show)

  30. Stoneshop Silver badge
    Coat

    Carry a flashlight

    and a couple of spare batteries.

    Then dark doesn't matter.

  31. Stu 18

    Obviously the council has been blinded because the darth baddie dude is to well politically connected. Happens all the time.

    I'm off to live in a swamp until an angstie teenager suffering from parental neglect comes to find me.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      But can you do the Kessel Run in less than 15 parsecs?

  32. magindville

    How to find "nothing".

    ...stop looking for it. Its impossible to find "nothing" using instruments, definitions, words, feelings, emotions, etch-a-sketches, or speak n spells since using "something" to find "nothing" inevitably invalidates the meaning of "nothing".

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: How to find "nothing".

      That's quite something.

  33. Marino

    where did the one originate from?

    The reason for not being able to find anything is because the science is based on "theories" and not "actuals".

    Science first has to explain where the "one" comes from.

    Yet science, theology (religion) or philosophy cannot truly explain where "one" came from.

    Saying it always existed is not a definitive answer, and to say all came from "nothing" is also incorrect.

    Because if "nothing" was truly "nothing", why call it NOTHING and even then it's given seven letters.

    For it takes more than "one" to even make up "one" of anything, as even a single atom has more than one component.

    As how can one of anything exist without it's "negative counterpart of space" that the "one" occupies within?

    A.E.I.O.U - Absolute Energy = Input, Output Utilization.

    As "one" of anything equals the I.O.U of AE, as does the next "one"

    It has been said that to know the secrets of the universe think - Energy, frequency, reverberation.

    And if there is/was "one" to begin with, it could only divide itself, thus multiplying itself.

    And the answer will still only be "one" because no matter how many times "one" multiplies or divides by "one" the answer is always one, which makes "one" and infinite number or better still "the whole".

    1. cyborg
      FAIL

      No

      Just no.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: where did the one originate from?

      Reverberation?

      I think you're writing about rock music, not physics. That, or you've been at some of the substances famously used by rock musicians to enhance their performances. Hint - the number of letters in a word has nothing to do with its meaning unless you're a numerologist, and they are even more crazy than reflexologists.

  34. Francis Boyle Silver badge

    Paging Dunning and Kruger

    "There's enough material here for a whole conference."

  35. The Dude

    No dark matter to find, obviously.

    There is no dark matter, and no dark energy either. Newton got it wrong, gravity is not a property of mass.

    Gravity is the motion (velocity) of empty space. It affects mass, obviously, but it is not a property of mass. In our gravity well, it might be difficult to establish this, but probably not impossible.

    No, I am not a physicist.

  36. Shonko Kid
    Facepalm

    Could it be..

    that the thing about Dark Matter - it's main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see it?

  37. David Pollard

    Plasma, MHD and 'let there be light' big bang

    The antipathy towards plasma cosmology continues to puzzle me. Magnetohydrodynamics is widely accepted in explanations of, inter alia, the outward transfer of momentum when stellar systems form; similar outward transfer of momentum when galaxies form; the acceleration of huge plasma jets, some of which are of galactic scale; and a range of observable solar phenomena. Equally, observations of the rotation of polarised light show that non-negligible magnetic fields exists within most galaxies.

    Yet any mention that electromagnetism may play a part in holding galaxies together is met with scorn, disdain and opprobrium.

    I sometimes wonder that the electric universe idea, the notion that stars are a sort of light bulb powered by cosmic currents, is actually a straw man set up against plasma cosmology, spawned and promoted by the dogmatically religious supporters of orthodoxy in a similar manner to the way that creationists are said to conjure up bogus research in order to discredit regular scientific discovery.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019