back to article Tiny, invisible EXTRATERRESTRIAL INVADERS appear at South Pole

Scientists at the South Pole have detected a collection of warp speed neutrinos from deep space that could help explain the origins of the universe. A team from the mighty IceCube telescope laboratory in Antarctica will reveal their findings in tomorrow's Science journal. The experts' 28 intergalactic subatomic particles were …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Duncan Macdonald Silver badge

    WTF ???

    If the report is right then particles up to 1200 TeV were detected - this is equivalent to more than the mass of 1,200,000 neutrons (or protons).!!!

    How could a neutrino achieve that energy ?

    Even if somehow all the energy of a collision of a uranium atom with an antimatter uranium atom could be put into one neutrino, this would still be less than one thousandth of the energy of this particle.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: WTF ???

      It is also about 2 orders or magnitude more than can be achieved at the LHC collision point once it reopens.

      We observed 28 neutrino candidate events (two previously reported), substantially more than the Formula expected from atmospheric backgrounds, and ranging in energy from 30 to 1200 TeV. With the current level of statistics, we did not observe significant clustering of these events in time or space, preventing the identification of their sources at this time.

      Yep, that's 0.0002 Joule. In a neutrino. What the hell?

      My tax money at work! More like this!

      1. MerryChristmas

        Re: WTF ???

        can't you see the obvious? this means as the stevie hawking robot will tell you we NOW need to spend trillions of worthless dollars not just billions of worthless dollars on new atom smashers to understand that we have even more very, very, important questions we have so no one will believe that God had anything to do with nuthin' -@--@-

        actually, !!!!!!!!! give me some of that old time religion!!!!!!!!

    2. Chris Miller

      Re: WTF ???

      How could a neutrino achieve that energy ?

      By travelling really, really fast. A massive star collapsing into a black hole*, or a star being swallowed by a galactic mass black hole should do the trick.

      * The bulk of the energy released by a supernova is in the form of neutrinos.

      1. Gordon 11

        Re: WTF ???

        A massive star collapsing into a black hole, or a star being swallowed by a galactic mass black hole should do the trick.

        Although since both involve a strong gravitational field that the particle has to exit I always wonder what sort of energy it must have had when created and ejected!

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        We should have neutrino shotguns for this kind of deal.

        I don't think black hole shenanigans are sufficient for this kind of action.

        While supernovas can kick charge particles, in particular iron nuclei to considerable cosmic-ray energies over long distances of plasma surfing, the neutrino cannot be gripped by electromagnetic forces.

        Once created, it's off.

        And neutrino spectra from supernovae stay safely below 90 MeV AFAIK.

  2. RobHib


    Having collected the particles

    Hum, it'll be interesting to see these elusive little neutrino fellas in a bottle for once.


    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Hum

      Clearly you need Dr Who's patent neutronium bottle, ultracooled.

    2. Tim Parker

      Re: Hum

      "> Having collected the particles

      Hum, it'll be interesting to see these elusive little neutrino fellas in a bottle for once.



      Yeah - i'm also intrigued by the "28 intergalactic subatomic particles, which were embedded within a cubic kilometre of polar ice"... presumably they just sort of fell out on the floor when the block was opened, and they had to scoop them up into the bottle.. that must have been a tricky lil'job and no mistake (especially if you had gloves on or no nails).

  3. adnim Silver badge

    Neurinos have mass,

    although this has not been measured. It is therefore a massive relativistic particle and can approach but not reach the speed of light.

    1. Michael Dunn

      Re: Neurinos have mass,

      Didn't even know they were Catholics!

      (Courtesy Dan Brown:Angels and Demons.)

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Neurinos have mass,

        It's the matter of an old schism!

  4. Sean's handle

    Why didn't the writer explain the title?

    The writer never said anything about extraterrestrials: neither seriously or seriously funny.

    It would have been easy to either joke that neutrinos are extraterrestrials somehow.

    Or maybe look at the possibility of the neutrinos being made by extraterrestrials.

    Instead the dots were left unconnected.

    How uncool.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Why didn't the writer explain the title?

      Clue is in "originated from outside the Solar System".


  5. MerryChristmas

    my TOE

    its scientifically obvious we will now need trillions (adjusted for inflation) to build more powerful accelerators

    (atom smashers) and take every bright and gifted individual that is available to look into these deep and meaningful areas in our never ending quest for the ultimate theory of everything.


    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      You wish me to have Michigan beer ?

      I'd rather have a Duvel, thank you.

  6. Winkypop Silver badge

    Science porn

    Up with this kind of thing.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. neutrinos

    I have theorised that extremely high energy neutrinos might be produced by naturally occurring particles interacting with clusters of supermassive rotating black holes.

    Essentially the edge of the black hole acts like a monster particle accelerator, allowing the protons and antiprotons to collide at velocities that simply cannot occur anywhere else

    Where the proton/antiproton streams from adjacent black holes collide you get intermittent bursts of neutrinos at the energy levels seen.

    1. Wzrd1

      Re: Re. neutrinos

      "Where the proton/antiproton streams from adjacent black holes collide you get intermittent bursts of neutrinos at the energy levels seen."

      Yep, sounds like a lousy neighborhood to be in.

      But, a totally cool one to observe from a great distance. ;)

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: adjacent black holes

      We've already enough trouble finding ONE black hole, and you want them to come in pairs ?

      Kids these days.


  8. Marino

    Who to truly believe

    Scientist haven't even physically seen an atom (even with all the technology they have at hand).

    Now they saying they have found particles even smaller than an atom?????

    There will those that say, but we utilise the findings in the maths.

    And I say to you, all man made ideas and algorithms.

    If one "lived" on Mars (or any other planet) the maths would have different outcomes due to the frequency output of that planet.

    If one wanted to "sense" life on a different planet, one would have to be in "tune" to that planet's frequency.

    Man's laws apply only to man on man's earth, apply man's laws to the universe and it would not last a nano second.

    Science says believe in what we say, even though we have not physically seen an atom.

    Religion also says believe in what we say, even though we have not physically seen "god".

    So who and what does one put their "faith" in?

    Faith is belief without doubt in the inner consciousness.

    So the only logical answer is, believe in one's own self.

    1. Marino

      Re: Who to truly believe

      I forgot to add that "inner growth" overcomes gravity's effects.

      Because how else would anything "grow".

      To overcome a force one utilises a greater force.

      1. hplasm Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Who to truly believe

        "To overcome a force one utilises a greater force."

        Unfamiliar with the concept of judo then?

        As for the rest....

        1. Marino

          Re: Who to truly believe

          If that was the case for Judo, there wouldn't be such a thing (or a need) as weight classes in competition, now would there.

    2. smartermind

      Re: Who to truly believe

      You've obviously gone cuckoo in the head!!! These are not man made laws but man's observation of universal laws of physics that are equally valid on Mars as they are on Earth. It is in fact "God's laws" that are man made as God is a figment of man's imagination. You don't have to have seen something personally to know it exists. As for this nonsense about the "frequency of the planet", what dope are you on? Or rather what planet are you on?

      1. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        How do you know I am truly wrong, have you done any tests on Mars?

        Because if one did, the maths "laws" would be according to the findings of what one observes on Mars (if one lived there).

        I can guarantee you that the "frequency" of Earth differs from the frequency of Mars (or any other planet).

        It has been said that to know the secrets of the universe think energy, frequency, vibration/reverberation.

        If one was to reverberate at the same rate of another, (say a glass panel for instance) one would/could pass through it.

        If the Philadelphia experiment is to be believed, this would explain why some of the personnel were found fused to the ship, after the magnetic coil was shut off (as all were and had an equal vibrational frequency at the time of the coil being activated).

        1. BongoJoe

          Re: Who to truly believe

          I can guarantee you that the "frequency" of Earth differs from the frequency of Mars (or any other planet).

          Enlighten me. In terms of Hertz, what is the frequency of Earth and and how does this compare with the frequency of the other planets?

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Kaltern

              Re: Who to truly believe

              Sorry but,


              That is all.

      2. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        I guess you haven't heard of the "Schumann resonance"

        With regards to drugs, they change the electrical frequencies delivered to the neurons, hence why one sees the world differently.

        Even some of the greatest minds experimented with drugs to get their theories.

    3. FromTheRoot

      Re: Who to truly believe

      I agree, but faith in one's self is only faith as far as you know it, if you truly believed without a shadow of a doubt could you fly? Could pigs fly? Lol

      Our limitations are taught, as long as there is doubt, about anything, it is not possible - so to believe 100% without a shadow of doubt that you will eventually die, does this belief alone ultimately cause you to die?

      Your reality is entirely within your own head, we have no way of knowing the following:-

      1. Is what we are experiencing actually what is out there?

      2. Is anyone else conscious or do they just appear to be?

      3. When we are not there, as a conscious observer, does it continue to exist?

      So really you could argue that anything you are reading/experiencing is actually a manifestation of your own beliefs.......but do you have the power to influence that?!

      1. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        The problem being is most are taught with a curriculum to "remember and repeat" and not to "think and know".

        Those that question the supposed norm are ridiculed (as I have on this site by others).

        But if not one truly knows the "meaning of life", how can any answer be wrong?

        Humans utilize "linear time" yet, scientist know that time doesn't truly exist and further yet they continue to use it in their math.

        That is what scientist cannot do in any laboratory or with their math, to create the sense of existence and the will to exist.

        I read a good analogy when it comes to existence and who we think we are.

        1. Ask a person who do they think they are, and they will naturally look at themselves and say "I am me".

        2. Get them to close their eyes and picture something in their mind (dog, cat, or what ever).

        3. Ask that person then, who is looking at the image they conjured, and they will answer to you "I am".

        4. You then ask them (while their eyes are still closed) "who then is you"?

        1. asdf Silver badge

          Re: Who to truly believe

          Marino don't you have a CNN article to troll or something? Yes science is all a myth. After all its just a coincidence that for the last 60 years unlike the 100,000+ years before that half of our children no longer die before the age of 5.

          1. Marino

            Re: Who to truly believe

            And 100 years ago + cancer used to be 1 in 1000, now 1 in 2.

            If science truly knew the truth, why is science killing more humans more than ever.

            One would think that by now there would be no such thing as disease, cancer, or for that matter death.

            With the combined knowledge on all subjects (which numbers into the millions of years and for some billions of years) older than man is, yet here we are arguing if what one says is true or not.

            And if one was to combine all the years of all the humans on this planet it would outnumber the age of the universe by tenfold, so how does science explain all that "time" matter.

            1. smartermind

              Re: Who to truly believe

              Marino keep babbling on. Don't worry the men in white coats will be coming for you soon. Then you can feel the frequency of the electricity as it convulses through your brain in the ECT you'll be getting! You are so sad and so deluded!

            2. smartermind

              Re: Who to truly believe

              There is no evidence that what you say about cancer and deaths is correct. Firstly 100 years ago they didn't have the resources to detect cancers and they were under reported. Secondly the general death rate was much higher so people died before the effects of cancer kicked in. Thirdly the population was smaller so fewer people died from cancers. Finally as you don't believe in the concept of time, today's deaths are yesterday's deaths! 1 in 2 implies that 50% of deaths are due to cancer! Absolute nonsense! Anyway, science is not killing anyone, your lunacy is!

              1. Marino

                Re: Who to truly believe

                There is evidence to increased cancer and deaths, you just need to dig deeper (if you are unaware statistics/ratio are calculated by numbers on ground).

                In today's world, there is no MONEY in keeping people healthy, Big pharma is making a killing supplying drugs, and they are the first to knock on a recently qualified doctor's door to push their drugs, wake up.

                Bill Gates had publicly said the worlds population needs to be culled by 80% and the best way is through sterilization of the population, and what is his new venture, vaccinations.

                Again, do some research.

                But I must admit, less humans means less money for the elite, so the logic there doesn't compute.

                The majority are brainwashed, because how can (in a mostly democratic society) the 1% rule the 99% when supposedly majority rules????

                And one would have to be truly brainwashed, to pay an entity to tell you what you can and can't do.

                Hence education and the majority walk around like pre-programmed robots and believe what they are told and taught.

                A truly educated human questions what he/she is taught, and not just accept.

                If one cannot think for themselves, perhaps culling is the best thing.

                But not to worry, your "matter" will go to good use, it will get recycled for the remainder (of the sum of the whole) to feed off.

                And again I must say, I forgive you for your ignorance.

                Perhaps you can answer one question for me, How did the very first of any trade/practice, gets it's qualifications when there was no teacher/school to begin with so as to give a qualification???????????

            3. BongoJoe

              Re: Who to truly believe

              And 100 years ago + cancer used to be 1 in 1000, now 1 in 2.

              If science truly knew the truth, why is science killing more humans more than ever.

              Common sense is weak in this one.

              Okay, I'll bite. Cancer happens to all of us if we live long enough. A hundred years ago we weren't living as long and neiher was it as detectable as it is now. A hundred years ago, as we were about to be queing up to be slaughted in the trenches, when someone died it was perhaps due to malnutrician, TB, industrial accident or an ealer old age. No-one would bother to cut open Old Man Higgings to find he had cancer.

              Using this statistic is like saying "Air bags in cars causes more broken legs than before".

              I think that you're either Steve Hillage or Eric von Dankein and I claim my five pounds.

        2. Marino

          Re: Who to truly believe

          Open your eyes and all you see (sense) is mine (mine = IN ME).

          Close your eyes and all you see (sense) is mine (IN ME).

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Who to truly believe

      Careful now, science ahead!

    5. D 13

      Re: Who to truly believe

      I think you misread the instructions in the letter you received you actually need to regularly "sign the register" not "sign into The Register"

    6. Christoph Silver badge

      Re: Who to truly believe

      Your message is in itself extremely strong evidence that the laws of Physics are substantially correct.

      Not by its content but by its existence.

      If the Universe did not work in accordance with the laws of Physics then modern electronics would be utterly impossible in many different ways.

      That includes the computer you typed your message on, the server which holds it, and the network that distributes it.

      1. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        The universe doesn't work in accordance to the "laws of physics".

        As I said, apply man's "physics" to the universe it would not last a nano second.

        Make your own model, punch all what you know into a computer and see how long that model of the universe would last.

        Because the macro doesn't work for the micro.

        Religion, science, nor philosophy can explain how the "one" came about.

        To say it came from nothing or it has always been there, doesn't truly explain/answer.

        To even suggest it came from nothing, says that it was lurking there all along.

        All has to be taken into account (the whole), not just what suits to make the model work.

        Because all (the whole) is making the actual work.

        We will all know soon enough when the Apocalypse happens (apocalypse meaning- revealing what was once hidden).

        Bag me if you want, but no matter what, the whole will remain the whole, only the sum of it's parts differ from time to time.

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

        And if one of anything is the I.O.U of AE, as is the next one.

        All is the I.O.U of AE for A.E.I.O.U.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Who to truly believe

          Knowing "the whole" implies that any one person could know about everything in existence. Since this isn't possible, then your logic would indicate it's impossible to create a model about anything. If it's impossible to create a model of anything, then why should I believe your model for absolute energy? Since no one person could have ever known "the whole" on this planet, then how could any model for "absolute energy" have possibly been derived?

          You think that man's science is incorrect for the rest of the universe. Is it so impossible to believe that a man could observe a phenomenon on this planet, and that those observations could lead to a set of equations that are universally true? Do you have so little faith in mankind that you would believe it's impossible for us to deduce even one single law of physics, on any level?

          If you believe in yourself so much, then why don't you believe in mankind a little more? You yourself are a man, so implying that mankind is so incapable of deducing the laws of the universe would also imply that your own laws are equally as fallible.

          Furthermore, do you even know what the word "frequency" means? It means the number of occurrences of a repeating event over TIME, a concept that you implied should not be used because scientists said it "doesn't exist". If scientists can't use time to explain things, then why should I believe your explanations that also involve time?

          If these planets have a "frequency", then exactly what event is reoccurring. What is oscillating? Could you please explain what the frequency is a measure of in this instance, because I can't figure it out.

          1. Marino

            Re: Who to truly believe

            If you are unaware "time " is man made ideology.

            Did time exist before man walked the earth?

            If you think evolution is always ongoing where are the half man half monkey's, or are you one of them?

          2. Marino

            Re: Who to truly believe

            We do the know the whole (because we are I.O.U of the whole), those now in control have suppressed this knowledge.

            Because if all had "the knowledge" no one could have any control or any power over the next.

            Earth has an output "frequency" of 7.83 Hz if you must know, because you can't do your own research.

            And if you haven't already figured out what exactly the planets do, they orbit, hence an event reoccurring (as are the seasons on this planet).

            And the flak I am enduring for my comments.

            And if you read all my comments, punch all man's laws into a computer model of a universe and "time" how long it would last.

            I would love to know your answer, and if I'm wrong I will publicly admit it.

            And if you recall my answer was, not even a nano second of man based time.

            Ignorance is forgetfulness, so I do forgive you for that.

      2. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        For those of you didn't believe me that man's laws are wrong, just read, MY EYES! Earth engulfed by BRIGHTEST EVER killer gamma-ray burst.

        This article is also on The Register.

        I hate to say it but, I told you all so.

    7. BongoJoe

      Re: Who to truly believe

      If one "lived" on Mars (or any other planet) the maths would have different outcomes due to the frequency output of that planet.

      I think that if this were the case and, say, pi were an integer then the Mars Rover's wheels would have fallen off my now.

      1. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        A circle can be created utilizing only straight lines (I can draw a diagram to prove this, but unfortunately I cannot upload it onto this comments page).

        One only has to look at what the ancient's achieved (which man today can only guess how they achieved it and would have a very hard time to replicate, even with today's technology/machines).

        So they obviously knew something that modern man doesn't or have we have forgotten (because those in power are not wanting to teach this knowledge in fear of losing control of the masses).

        It is hard to get out of our thoughts what we have been taught, but if one can break through that way of thinking... then who knows?

        The easiest way the enslave the masses is to withhold/deny one true knowledge.

    8. Steven Roper

      Re: Who to truly believe

      Marino, I've just taken the trouble to upvote all of your posts in this thread for successfully trolling the Reg commentard community to such an extent. Truly a trolling worthy of the best of 4chan. And that's even taking into account Poe's Law, because I'm certain nobody capable of entering a username and password would actually believe the new-age quasi-religious tripe you just posted!

      1. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        Steve Roper, I must truly believe without a doubt, to even have the balls to write what I am writing.

        How many can or could say the same, I probably can count them on one finger (which finger, I'll leave that to one's imagination).

        Once upon a time, all thought the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe (or the very least the solar system), and America's NSA didn't spy on it's own civilians.

        But hey most humans still believe paper money is actually worth something.

        "Time" will only tell, if I am wrong.

    9. Peter Johnstone

      Re: Who to truly believe

      'Scientist haven't even physically seen an atom'

      Oh yes they have.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Who to truly believe

        The trolling is strong in this thread. Let's up it a bit by citing a well-known research paper. In "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", Alan D. Sokal (Department of Physics, New York University) writes:

        There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

        But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ``objectivity''. It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ``reality'', no less than social ``reality'', is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ``knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics; in Ross' discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science; in Irigaray's and Hayles' exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics6; and in Harding's comprehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular.

      2. Marino

        Re: Who to truly believe

        I looked at the link you recommended, and was fascinated by this quote,

        "When the experimental data was compared to the Schrödinger equation for the various excitation states, there was a statistically valid match. So it is likely that this is actually what hydrogen’s electron orbital looks like"

        Once again, man made algorithms to suit man laws.

        Nice try though.

  9. Blofeld's Cat


    For some reason I thought of a "small dog" when reading that headline...

    It's the slightly muddy dressing gown with the towel in a pocket.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not life Jim, Well not as we not know it!

  11. Hell

    The Thing

    Don't you know what this means? Haven't we seen this before? "The Thing" is starting its takeover of the human species. We need to draw blood and test it with a hot pin. Someone get Kurt Russell.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe I'm dense but..

    What are the odds of these 28 particles coming from outside of the Solar System, travelling all that way then smashing (and being stopped by?) some snow that happens to be right next to a particle detector? It just seems slightly improbable to me.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      It's a Wile E. Coyote world

      I may be dense

      You are correct, sir!

      If you are randomly hit bit a 7.62 bullet, someone may be spraying you with a MG-42.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Maybe I'm dense but..

      Umpteen gazillion particles came from outside the solar system - 28 happened to stop in this cubic km of ice, another 28 (or so) will have stopped in the ice above it and more in the ice next door.

      When the nearby supernova went off in 1987 we detected a total of 24 neutrinos in all the detectors on Earth, the model is that something like 10^60 neutrinos were created in the star.

  13. agricola

    Cold fusion, anyone?

    Let's see if I understand correctly...

    Neutrinos, which supposedly can travel from one end of the universe to the other, passing through absolutely ANYTHING, including Kryptonite, strip shopping malls, and that densest of ALL known materials, administratium, can be stopped dead in their tracks by Antarctic ice?

    Sounds like we're on to a new defensive weapon which lends new meaning to the term "cold war".

    Just don't let the Neo-Nazis, Neo-Commies, or the Academic-Research bandwagon-jumpers-on know about this.

    1. smartermind
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Cold fusion, anyone?

      LOL - an astute observation!

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Cold fusion, anyone?

        I don't know who anyone with an IQ above 50 can consider that an "astute observation".

        Man, I hate it when these articles are linked from Youtube and other sewers of the Internet.

  14. Marino

    I apologize to those who may take my replies and comments as arrogant.

    I am just trying to open minds to other possibilities, and not just the perceived learning's most have been taught/told, so one may do some further research to gather your own conclusions.

    As each and everyone of us holds a piece to the puzzle (even if one doesn't yet know it).

    1. smartermind

      Marino, your comments are not arrogant, they are ignorant! You cannot get people to open their minds by spouting 'flat Earth' theories! Give up and accept the scientific evidence and the universal laws of physics as fact.

      1. Marino

        @smartermind - Ignorance is forgetfulness.

        If universal law was founded, scientists still wouldn't be searching for answers now would they, hence I said "man's laws".

        And fact doesn't necessarily constitute truth.

        And you call your self smartermind?

  15. Winkypop Silver badge


    Is that you Eadon, with a new schtick?

  16. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Won't somebody think of the chil... neutrinos

    Poor little buggers, zipping around the universe at unbelievable speed, covering vast distances in an eye-blink only to be wiped out be a lump of common ice. What a sad story.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Won't somebody think of the chil... neutrinos

      Worse being a photon. You travel across the universe for 13billion years, find the telescope, reflect off the mirror, get through the band pass filter, happen to be in the few seconds when the shutter is open - and then hit a dead patch between two pixels.

  17. agricola

    What?! No acronyms, nor abbreviations?

    It is said that eskimos have a t least forty (or more) different words for different types of ice(s).

    Anyone want to hazard a guess as to their word for "ice" which stops neutrinos?

    And: I realize we're talking about different parts of the world; no geography lesson needed.

  18. da9el

    Just a short note;

    Perhaps those sci-fi stories ,such as Stargate SG-1, along with the documentary array from History Chanel, Science Chanel and a thing or two by well knowledgeable individuals like Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene and others ,...all those things converge into a striking reality that many out there are taking just as mere conjectures or fantasy.

    Input anyone? Opinions welcome.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019