BBC: Cosmology's Biggest Sceptic - Most of Our Universe is Missing

[dave474c]

Maybe he's just trying to keep us from the dark side

[Piitsi]

While mathematics is the most precise way to describe nature. Still it is not the nature itself. It's elementary logic not to confuse the map with the terrain. The root of science is in the empirical evidence and mathematics. What some people seem to forget is that you have to have both

Mathematically this is not the only possible universe, and when you want to find out how this universe works, you need to look whats there empirically. Empiricism and mathematics need each other. Appreciate both

[MuonRay]

The Standard model was designed for Experimental Particle Physics,mainly because it is easier to have models for which you can do computer simulations based on vast libraries of detector data about certain particles to make more efficient detectors which are optimized for the detection of a certain particle in a kind of a cycle of experiment,simulation and further experiment.it was'nt really Cosmology material to begin with-> the Big Bang happened under different conditions to experiments today.

[MuonRay]

Cosmology is good for scientific curiosity, and in some cases acts as a driving for to study science but Cosmology itself is pretty useless- there are a lot of scientific by-products driven by the curiosity of people, but I don't think it should be taken so seriously, like religion; so why should one man's view of science, or the universe, be so important when there are (a) thousands of Cosmologists and (b) a universe of which we can currently know about 2% about at the maximum.

[chylerreckeaolgodhul]

-.- Too bad the majority of the scientific community is not scientific.

[IloveYOUviruses]

First it was assumed that redshifts were due to space expansion, then infaltion was the ad hoc explanation to the uniformity in the CMRB; then dark matter: ad hoc explanation for particle accretion; then dark energy: adhoc explanation for accelerated "expansion"; after some dark flows and black holes, you end up not having a theory but a dogma.

[Mentord]

this guy is depressing

[marc80s]

There's a disturbing new trend in academic circles to decry skepticism. Demand more evidence of global warming? You're a "denier". Ask questions about the eminently questionable Standard Model of physics? You're a "kook". How is this rabid belief and total defensiveness part of science? Doesn't science demand evidence and proof? I thought that's what made it different than religion. Seems like today's academics are more concerned with protecting their pet theories and groupthink!

[dezparado5]

The theory was WRONG before dark matter was invented/discovered. Unless DM has no effect on matter. Which it does via gravity(allegedly). So which of those bright sparks are going to get it RIGHT now?

[Surfxeo]

Theology - The Queen of all the sciences.

[rgrggfdgfgr]

Yea...... Cosmology and religon are nothing alike.

You don't need to have faith to be a cosmologist.

[fctchk]

"The scientific evidence as to whether god exists or not is not there at all.. you can't make any decisions about it."

Try this to see how much sense you're making Mr Disney. "The scientific evidence as to whether ghosts exist or not is not there at all.. you can't make any decisions about it."

[gaynorglowellxsingh]

Dark matter and dark energy is the byproduct of the matter that falls into black holes, and black holes convert mass (plasma) into it's basic elemental forms and flavors, and CERN is a reversed engineered black hole.

[thedeeliciousplum]

I guess that Mike Disney is one of the names that one will find next to the the list of definitions for the word "murky". Astrophysicists express that approximately 96% of the universe is unknown. The term dark energy and dark matter are used as place holder words. I am not sure that Mike is even remotely qualified to give a professional opinion, yet I do support freedoms of speech and expression. Forgive my sharing of an opinion of Mike and of his questioable rationale.

[mjkr1988]

I'm loving all this conjecture. I tend to agree with Prof. Disney, we have only been observing the Universe with modern instruments for about 90 years and we seem to feel in our infinite wisdom that it's almost done and dusted. More time and patience is needed.

[VERGIS92]

How can he say that these things have no real basis? dark matter is simply a very real missing quantity of mass in planetary motion and gravitational effects, he's probably graduated from a joker university where everyone becomes an astronomer as long as they pay the right tuition fees

[jameywcll]

Wow a glider pilot! How dangerous to have someone who is asleep at the wheel flying over houses and such. This video says ....

nothing.... no reasonable disagreement nothing to support it but gliding.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[thomsonr]

As a layman interested in Quantum Theory, Superstrings, the Big Bang etc I've always thought there is something not right. Frankly I wonder why it is so complicated. Perhaps the real truth is beyond our comprehension. We've only had technology for a short time, what happens when we've had it for 1000+ years. What will our level of understanding be then?

One thing for certain religion has to be taken out of the picture.

[coldarc]

@thomsonr the real truth is within reach, its just not what astronomy think it is. its simple, its everywhere and if you combine the compartments of science the truth would reveal itself.

[mayagaworska]

But this person does not really brings much into discussion ... There are way better people that can really bring something to the table and discuss this thing but this peson here, simply says .. 'well I am kind of sceptic' ... kind of bored ... kind of .. well, I just simply refuse to believe it ... refuse to think science could explain all ...

He should be a priest not a professor. In any way, as a professor he should show evidence of his skepticism, not just say he is skeptic.

[genogeno1234]

I've been thinking that modern cosmologists watched a little bit too much Star Trek since their model is based on still undiscovered dark matter and dark energy. I think there are much more rational explanations for what they are observing without having to resort to exotic, and quite frankly laughable concepts.

[Dachmir]

its funny u all say the standard model is mathematical elegance... the reason that dark matter, dark energy etc exist is because of mathematical failure with the observations in deep space. instead of proving the theory wrong cosmologist ad new mechanics to explain the observations couse they believe blindy in the theory. thats what makes it close to religion

[megaead69]

There are Two possibilities: The Universe had a Creator OR It somehow just happened and after that all the natural laws emerged to lead to the formation of all that is present in It including us. Tell me which is more plausible.

[sbergman27]

Disney talks for ~2 minutes without saying anything. He makes vague assertions about the evidence not being there, but doesn't point to anywhere that data supporting SM is inadequate. I think he's criticizing DM's role. But current observational data is so good that we even have detailed maps of where it is. And the Bullet Cluster data cinches it. DM is now solidly part of the body of observational which theory must explain & not something conjured to make SM work. Disney seems stuck in 1998.

[chrisofnottingham]

He strikes me as a bit of a show off looking to make a point which the BBC are only too happy to promote, because nothing gets them more exited than a controversy.

I don't recognise his view of cosmologists at all. In fact I think they generally share his opinion that the model is a piecemeal attempt to join up patches of evidence and that great chucks of it may end up being modified eventually.

[aramhampson]

well of course, we have models, we can not go there. The guy videos himself in his glider..? what a dork.

[chrispydogs]

although we cannot directly detect dark matter the standard model is mathematical elegance. the theory wouldn't work without it. Basically this guy is saying that despite all other observations that we can physically observe are to be kept but all those unseen are to be thrown away. pfft I can say that most of physics comes from theory of mathematics before actually being observed. Take bubble chambers for example. This guys job is to crunch numbers for Hubble not sub atomic particle physics

[opptynox]

The recognition of "Dark Matter" is simply a statement that there's something there and we can't as yet detect it. Who knows what it will be? No different than when man historically didn't know air was molecular. 

[yourboycal]

"the illusion of knowledge"

We know ALOT!

But understand very little!

aint that the truth =)

[stephenjay375]

no evidence either way for god ? saying that without pointing out that nearly all believers make outrageous disprovable claims --- is a cowardly approach designed to pacify religious people or be just plain provacative. I dont disagree with what he says as much as what he implies and then doesnt say. Can he not say either way whether the evidence exists for a god who wants to stone people to death?

[jacksawild]

The problem with youtube is that people watch a few Carl Sagan videos and suddenly have the answers to the deepest scientific mysteries of mankind. Then they try to convince others of their theories (and I use that term loosely) in the comments section. Shut the fuck up already.

[IschysDynamis]

Dark Energy is the answer to the question, "Is there a God holding everything together?" The answer of course, in the scientific community, must be "No!" So they came up with an imaginary thing called "Dark Matter" and... the best part about it, is that it's invisible. Yet it is entirely mathematically necessary in order to reconcile the conflict between Einstein and Newton. It is also necessary to keep the lie about the Big Bang going, and by extension, evolution. Dark Matter is the science god

[Fangornmmc]

@IschysDynamis

You forgot Dark Energy and Dark Flow :). I agree with you, partly, but so does the scientific community, they absolutely hate all the 'Dark' stuff. I think however it becomes more acceptable if one sees it as a required concept. More of a 'idea' or hypothesis that has to fill in the temporary gaps whilst science furiously tries to fill the gaps.

I am curious as to what the future holds for us, I guess more rewriting of the fundamentals. That is what happens most of the time...

[MarkMaloney56]

Dear Wonderers,

My name is Mark Maloney; I would like to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56. com. There you will find entirely new physics and cosmology, called Proto-space and DSFF, which are the formational mechanics composing all aspects composing our universe. The best way to learn something new is to securitize it looking for errors. I welcome your opinions. This website has no religion/creationism, relativity, quantum mechanics, strings, brane, or time.

[AlShaddai]

The guy is cockney for crying out loud. To understand reality, you must get beyond language, senses, perception, and consciousness. In other words, you have to be dead. I do like the "illusion of knowledge" statement.

[AlShaddai]

The answer is "dark energy." What is the question?

[cherilynreimers]

"Skeptic".

Hahahahaha....sceptic....what a piece of shit

[lifeofbob]

Honestly, who the hell thinks dark matter is any kind of answer? It's a place holder for something we are nearly completely ignorant of. Any serious scientist will tell you that. We don't even know whether it's a substance, a force or what. We know something's going on, and we call that mystery "dark matter" until we get some clue as to what it is.

[DidntKnowWhatToPut1]

@lifeofbob Your right, no scientist will tell you that dark matter is an answer. They know that 99% of the mass of the cosmos seems to be missing they also know that something very heavy and invisible is out there as we can see its effects on light was it passes though. But they don't have an example of what it looks like yet.

[realscience1]

Dark matter doesn't exist. What is really happening is large electric currents generate tremendous magnetic fields. These hold galaxies together. The dark matter idea is what happens when you deny the existence of plasma cosmology.

[rspawn]

"It's an old and outdated theory"

The working hypothesis re dark matter and dark energy are a first step towards a new theory. Do you realize that without theory no science could be done? That's why they don't throw out an existing theory until there's a better one.

As i said before: contrary to what the video suggests, very few if any scientists think that a (any) theory is "the conclusive answer" to anything.

[CBALLEN]

All things are held together by Christ,not dark matter.

[rspawn]

The entire argument is based on the a bit of red herring, because very few if any scientists think that a (any) theory is "the conclusive answer" to anything. A theory merely encapsulates the best of current understanding.

Also, it's not true that the standard model is unproven; there are many observations that confirm the model. No surprise there because as any theory, it is based on observations.

And dark matter and dark energy are not theories but "working hypothesis".

[TheDreamMechanic]

@rspawn

Of course they are...to offset, again, mathematical anomalies. Dark matter was introduced to explain glaring contradictions regarding gravity - which in turn would have slowed the rate of expansion...hence the concept of dark energy to offset this anomaly. It's an old and outdated theory, but many a scientist have spent entire careers on it. Jobs, tenures, reputations at stake.

[erd85018]

This guy is a idiot! You could say the same thing about Santa Claus that he says about God.

[icemachine79]

@erd85018 You're right, but that doesn't make him an idiot. Think about it.

[TheDreamMechanic]

Right on the money. The big bang has indeed become a religion within itself; requiring belief as opposed to tangible, measurable evidence - which is supposed to be the scientific method, not mathematical and conceptual theoretics.

Great idea, painstakingly indulged in virtually every facet, but ultimately unprovable.

[icemachine79]

@TheDreamMechanic So what alternative explanation do you think makes more sense? I've looked back through the comments on here but I wasn't able to find one if you had presented it. Everything is moving away from everything else, but if you reverse that doesn't it mean that everything was very close together at one point? Unless you offer evidence to support your assertion that agreeing with the Big Band model is like religion, then you're simply offering a straw man argument with no merit.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@icemachine79

The only vantage point that is possible to validate the claim that "everything is moving away from everything else" is from THE center of the universe - from which the big bang supposedly emanated. Plus, our scale of time and space are severely limited relative to infinity, and are in no position to speak of processes that supposedly take billions of years. Maybe it's cyclical. Maybe it's reverberatory on a galactic scale.

[opptynox]

@TheDreamMechanic Review physicist Lawrence Krauss' simple explanation of how we know "everything is moving away (spreading) from everything else". He diagrams it nicely in a speech available on youtube. I recommend reading Hawking's "Brief History"... but the Krauss speech will clarify it for you.

[rehabwales]

If it's true that the standard model is pushing to be set in stone then it is religion because science is not about proving. It's about discovering. There are many question about cosmology that are not answered but they have some ideas. This does not mean they should stop seeking the answer. You just replace real science with guesses and god.

[IslandguyX]

Excellent! The man is spot on.

"the greatest obstacle in science is the illusion of knowledge, the illusion that we already know what's going on, when we don't"

I wish the mainstream scientists who can't tell arithmetic from physics had to say that sentence every day after they got out of bed!

[metafa84]

Cosmology is close to religion? It is the same as if you say art is close to religion. Some artists draw pictures with religious contents - that does not say anything about art.

Modern cosmology makes in most cases perfect mathematical sense. If you do not believe that nature is depending on the rules of mathematics then you can abandon all of physics. And think of the story of the atom: We were able to proof the existance of atoms a long time before we could actually see them.

[TheDreamMechanic]

@metafa84

True, but there was no need to conjure suspicious entities such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" in order to make preconceived mathematics work. The big bang, with all of its holes in logic, is adhered to by many the same way religions are adhered to by fundamentalists. Given the scope of the topic at hand - and the perpetual cycle of having to rewrite its interpretation historically - I think it would be more intelligent to remain humble, and continue to search.

[thelittlegreenliar]

@TheDreamMechanic Yeah but those nut jobs sure are good at math.

[darkmasterpel]

@metafa84 Actually. nobody see an atom

[rory88888]

@metafa84 mathematics is the perfect tool for describing the universe however it does not explain the universe

[bonzelite]

@metafa84 Anything can be elevated to a religious institution for that matter. Art itself is not a religion but can be or attain to a "religious" status, same for anything: rock music, model airplane flying, kung fu, etc... I think more on point is the condition of the scientific fascism that prevents alternative theories, that are potentially more credible, from replacing flawed mainstream models that are predicated upon houses of cards of theories.

[Skandalos]

@metafa84 It makes "mathematical sense"? So what? And what would that mean anyway, to make "mathematical sense"? Mathematic is a toolbox, a model collection, nothing more. Math can model reality as well as it can model phantasy.

[metafa84]

@Skandalos Well, there are numerous cases (and with numerous I mean thousands) where mathematical sense means nothing less than the unability to prove the opposite (and that's quite frankly the highest grade a theory can reach in science. I.e. relativity). The language of nature IS mathematics. And although as you say "mathematics is only a toolbox" and we can never go the edge of the universe, mathematical sense to me is a clear indicator that reality cannot be very far away from this.

[Skandalos]

@metafa84 Math is "the language of nature"? Again something that doesnt make any sense.

[metafa84]

@Skandalos Well to quote myself: "If you do not believe that nature is depending on the rules of mathematics then you can abandon all of physics". And if you do that: tough luck xD

[Skandalos]

@metafa84 "nature is depending on the rules of mathematics"? hello? We, humans, we have developed mathematics. It serves as an interface between infinitely complex nature and our limited brains. Math is not nature, its not the language of nature, nature doesnt depend on math.

You sound like the rapist who goes like "the bitch wanted it". You project your human limitedness at nature. You got a hammer, so everything in nature gotta be a nail. How stupid can you get?

[metafa84]

@Skandalos Also if you are using polarising words, your comment is ridiculous (and creepy). Humans did not invent mathematics, this would mean that the first reasonable event with a cause and an effect happened when the first human began to think of words for 1 finger, 2 fingers, 3 fingers, ... . Math cannot be just invented by someone. Everything is based on it since the beginning of time, clearly in our universe. Are you one of these braindead religious people or what do you want to show here?

[Skandalos]

@metafa84 "Humans did not invent mathematics"? LOL? Who invented it then? Your guinea pig perhaps?

Me religious? You are the one who tries to put mathematics into a god-like role.

[metafa84]

@Skandalos That's the beauty of it. Mathematics did not need to be invented in this universe. Yeah we invented the name "mathematics" and thought of names for numbers and operations. and yeah the language of nature is physics and the language of physics is mathematics.. we can describe the processes in nature so exact.. is it this precision which frightens you? This is undeniable.. there is only mathematics and no romance, no god involved in this. Too bad man....

[DanikaK2]

It's so hard to believe that we are alone in this universe. I believe in God but I think there are some creatures outside our galaxy. And of course they don't look as weird as Hollywood filmakers show

[Jammieg001]

"the illusion of knowledge", that's grand, kinda like asking where did the big bang start? If everything were spreading out from some single point seems it would be easy to retrace the trajectories back to the start, and important to say we know where it happened, yet no one ever says.

[fecalbell]

@Jammieg001 yes they do, but it's not anyone elses fault that you did not try and become aware of it. anyway just go spend a little time on wikipedia this topic has been beaten to death

[thelittlegreenliar]

@Jammieg001 think of a firecracker exploding and trying to retrace the dust based on trajectory 3 minutes later, it would be damn near impossible.

[nickharvey7]

Good video what he says makes a lot of sense physics is in a mess

[VWoutertje]

My opinion is that the standard cosmology and also the alternatives I read about, didnt explain nature in a  scientific integer way, 12/2009

[TheFiddog]

BLANIK!! I LOVE FLYING BLANIK!! :)

[WolYou]

If something is not there, you can make the decision that its not existing. I dont understand why one should bring up bizarre fantasies, when there is no reason for it. The entire discussion whether there is a god or not is meaningless. Unless he's popping up saying hello, we should go on with what we can measure. Zeus, Apollo, God or whatever you might name those imaginary figures are simply not there. This is a matter of fact and not worth a debate.

[diamondrio21]

VERY VERY VERY WELL PUT MY FRIEND !

[TweaksInYaBrain]

@WolYou the point is..that there is more than MATTER ..of fact ;). For example there is anti-matter...so...the whole idea that untrained apes fail to work with is that ''it doesn't mean that something does not exist just because you can't see/grasp it...'' That's the basis of theoretical science and also the basis of much of the palpable facts wich we KNOW today. If we went on with only what is measurable we would still be in the stone age. God is a metaphoar...but it's actions are facts.

[sebastiaanvanwater]

Where's the rest of the program?

[Tedericoe]

I dont know how you religious people find your selves commenting on a video on Cosmology. Let alone you're using a computer, Either Take it all or dont take it.

[magnuslerbrekk]

their leading us into a new dark age

[soupdragon42]

Billions have been invested in nonsense ideology, which is an obstacle to progress. Alternative theories threaten this monopoly! The LHC people have even blamed aliens from the future for the failure of their latest billion dollar project! Indded, cosmology is now akin to a religion.

[garyshermer]

this is truly the case.

[vindarm]

Yes Billions lost on this it's a shame. They could have fed hundreds of thousands with that money.

[planetdarwin]

This is refreshing to hear. But a little alarming too. Just like the day I realized everything I'd be taught about gods was false. I feel the same way about dark matter. I'm starting to see that most of my ideas were instilled with un-earned certainty. Only my discomfort with the way the pieces fit together (with universal expansion, for example) has lead me to others who hint that dark matter may be nothing more than a convenient patch for a massive gap in knowledge.

[ModelAnarchist]

There is no god and there is no dark matter

[trendyjon]

The proof that god exists is around us to

see.

Can non beleivers prove to me he doesn´t?

[trendyjon]

If there is no god then how can man

create the sun , water , and the earth

wake up none beleivers.

[xxxSTEVORULZxxx]

OK... who made god? Everything has a beggining and a end.... so where did this all powerful being come from? where is the proof? what all the scientists and astronamists say about the "big bang" makes sense

[vindarm]

The burden of proof is on you evolutionists there is nothing wrong with our ways. God has always existed our proof is in the bible and the world and it's just common sense. You can ask this all powerful being when you meet him. I don't think you will be worried about science when your laying on your death bed.

[xxxSTEVORULZxxx]

You say god has always existed. how do you know he/she exists? is there any proof at all? the bible isnt proof of a god. the bible was written by people over a long period of time and people just belive what it says. your right that when im on my death bed i wont be worrying about science, but i wont be worrying about a god either.

[davehooke1973]

You don't know what "burden of proof" means.

[vindarm]

You don't know what "proof" means.

[davehooke1973]

No, vindarm. "Burden of proof" is primarily a legal concept, extended to rational discussion.

There is no "burden of proof" on the theory of evolution. That idea is ridiculous. The theory of evolution - being science - is based on the factual evidence!

[derangius]

we dont know and neither do you so pretending you do by believing is throwing your logic and reasoning out the window and simultaniously eliminating what seperates you from animals. The ability to reason.

[clay4you]

Most off the universe is missing? The owl can't see in daylight. Like the owl we are blinded by it's glare, no?

[krispykr33m2]

Wow, nature and the universe itself scream Creator God! But alas the fool in his heart says there is no God.

[vindarm]

Amen brother!

[enoughzenough]

There's alot we can pholosophize about when we talk about the unkown. It's easy to come up with a theory when there's no evident theory until there's one and there will be one. Prof. Disney is just another Sir Bertrand Russell to me, he's more of a philosopher than a scientist.

[StrangerThenRedz]

the good professor has an interesting theory that now i will use as an authority to wage my war on science muahahaha

[clay4you]

The reason we can't see dark matter is, we are too small. Our solar system is a replica of an atom. Our galaxy is a replica of a molecule. We fail to see that parallel universe. The parallel universe that our solar system, (atom,) is a part of. It's a being so big it lives in a universe far beyond our imagination. Where our universe just belongs to 1 individual who lives in a world like ours but, can't see us. We're too small. Our universe makes up the body of this one individual of flesh.

[StrangerThenRedz]

the Simpson have a video on that but what happens when the individual dies or what cell of the atom are we since cells die and atoms get replenished

[clay4you]

Just remember, you can't stop yourself from being born and you can't stop yourself from dying. It's not up to you to decide what happens when the flesh dies because, flesh is weak. It's atomic parts won't die. The sun blows up only to create more suns. The big bang is nothing more than a birth. Consiousness is the same for all things big and small. You lose it when you die. Why? Because, you don't need it. If your looking for a purpose. The seed gets watered and is replaced by a thousand seeds.

[vindarm]

The sun blows up only to create more suns? Yeah cause we've seen that before right?

[PapalTime]

..Yes?

[vindarm]

ahhh no

[drollere]

yes, actually, astronomers have documented very extensively both the creation and death of stars -- not our sun (yet), but stars as evolving bodies -- in both our and other galaxies. and the death and rebirth of stars fits with the observed distribution of atomic elements in the universe. you speak from ignorance, which is one of the main effects of religious dogma: to keep humans in ignorance of their world. cardiff is wrong: the greatest obstacle to science isn't false knowledge, but religion.

[soccom8341576]

FOR all things natural, we are almost always restrained by what theory we know. It decides everything we do and perceive.

In the past, we have had so many similar situations when we believed that we had nothing more to discover. Everytime this has happened, we found some glitch or new thing to start investigating on again.

It is simply an adventure in which mankind realizes what it itself is.

[bboysoul69]

very interesting thank you very much! without a doubt i´ll read about it and hopefully when i understand more to it we could have a chat about this!

[bboysoul69]

were did you find or read/heard about that theory?, a friend and i were just discussing about it, interesting isnt it?

[ActiveStorage]

"they have no real physical basis"

im glad there are people like this guy out there in the industry

[ismite123]

just around a thousand years ago the most learned people of the planet argued the earth was flat. and we think that now we have it all figured out.1000 years from now they will look back on us and laugh at our simple minded behavior,and ideas....you dont know the things you have no idea about.

[paulscape72]

Only religous european people argued the world was flat. Plenty of ancient cultures knew it was a sphere.

[SirSmartyPants]

Name some.

[OneManMilitia69]

500BCE Ancient Greece, Pythagoras concluded that a sphere is the most harmoniuos geoometric shape. The culture widely accepted backed by other Greek literature.

[tubemaster6]

Dude... the point of his argument was how our perceptions of the world can be very wrong from what truly exists and how over the years, new ones will be proven and some things we believe today may not even really exist.

Who thought the world was flat is a ridiculous and irrelevant argument. Who CARES?

[squareeyedgit]

Whoever built the Great Pyramids was well aware that the earth is a globe - and they put mathematical clues in the very architecture of the largest of them - making the ratio of its height to its base perimeter the same as the ratio of the earth's equatorial circumferance to its polar radius. It's important to realise that these facts were known in an earlier part of human existence because it means that human understanding has not simply been a linear progression. This is still the case today.

[00synergy00]

good point.

[enoughzenough]

Cheops, because he wanted immortality, in other words he achieved what he wanted, if not for the pyramids we wouldn't be talking about him now, thus the theory of immortality. Mathematics was left in the second plan, it took the egyptians many generations in order to discover the perfect angles to build the perfect pyramid...well it had to be hard without having the knowledge of π to build such a perfect solid as the Pyramid.

[squareeyedgit]

Que? Second plan? Not sure what you're on about, mate. What i (and plenty of professional thinkers) was getting at was that there is a 'missing' generation that were obviously well aware of all the 'extreme' mathematics - those who built the pyramids were aware of pi amongst other stuff. There's no way those pyramids could've been constructed without it. Cheops may well have wanted immortality but there is nothing concrete associating that name with the pyramid normally associated with him.

[squareeyedgit]

The insides of he Great Pyramids are completely blank, as compared to all those of the other dynasties, no inscriptions or heiroglyphs whatsoever

I don't know for ceratin what the truth is (i've never been there and i'm no scientist), but the conventional Egyptologist explanation is obviously not the whole story... We need more open minds and more transparency - it's too important to just bury (pun intended)

[enoughzenough]

Check out for "Ahmes" and the "Rhind Mathematical Papyrus" on Wiki or elsewhere, it might interest you, mate.

[squareeyedgit]

I might just do that, bud!

[ismite123]

if part of the universe is missing its because g.w.bush has hatched a plot to dominate the globe. vote oboma or you are a racist.

[mycenean]

'The greatest obstacle to progress in science is the illusion of knowledge,' ....wonderful

[bboysoul69]

best phrase i´ve heard in alot of time

[fericire7]

interesting

[thejobbyweecher]

he does!...no,he disney!

[CloanLabs]

I wholeheartedly agree with Disney!

The more we learn about dark matter, the less sense the Standard Model of the big bang makes to me.

I really don't see how the big bang could be the right explanation anymore.

In fact, in a way, I think the big bang could simply be seen as a holdover from creationist God-centered views of the beginning.

If there is not one god, why must there be a single big bang?

[Janusha]

The whole idea behind the big bang comes from the -fact- that everything is moving away from a single point in space. So at some point everything was in that point. You cant just make opinions to discard that fact. The big bang merely means that at some point it started to no longer be a single point, it expanded quickly.. like an explosion.

[CloanLabs]

"The whole idea behind the big bang comes from the -fact- that everything is moving away from a single point in space"

And yet, that is not what we see. It isn't that everything is moving away from a single point in space. If that were the case, the answer would be simple.

Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe. The further things are from us, the faster away they are moving from us.

Have fun explaining THAT.

The "Big Bang" can't.

[wenaolong]

I don't think that is quite a "fact", but rather an interpretation of observations which, may not have been properly interpreted at all. Also, the notion that because things are moving away from a point that they were once all, or even any of them at that point, seems like a conjecture. It seems like a strange conjecture, actually. As if the universe must act like your billiard balls. What a strange assumption!

[vindarm]

A fact huh? where is this point again?

[Drzacksmith]

1)CloanLabs What "Dark Matter!" this is precisely the type of thing that his on about, the standard model can't account for the structures of Galaxies. So instead of saying well hold on we may be totally off the mark here. They say well lets keep the model & if observation doesn't match it then lets invent something that we can't see or measure, so we can account for the model but not the observation.

[Drzacksmith]

2)This reminds me of Middle Ages, when in order to account for the apparent motion of the planets & in keeping of the doctrines of the Church, they invented the most elaborate bit of geometry with wheels within wheels to account for it. The model worked but it didn't mean that it bore anything to reality.

[Drzacksmith]

3)If your Hypothesis is wrong then it's wrong & you revise it or abandon it. His analogy to religion is a good one, if you can't accept that what you learnt could be wrong, then you are no longer participating in Science you are practicing religion.

[CloanLabs]

Yeah. It reminds of cosmology circa five or six hundred years ago. They had these beautiful glass spheres that the stars were set into, and perfectly round circles for planet orbits. But then they found that the orbits weren't perfect. So they designed orbits around those orbits, and then orbits around THOSE orbits. It just looked like a giant house of cards. And then when Galileo showed up and started really trying to make sense of it, the church threatened to burn his ass! Those wacky humans.

[Drzacksmith]

a)You got it! What pisses me off is there are a lot of good science out there that is in disparate need of funds. Some how these guys are over looked. In the mean while a bunch of troglodytes down mine shafts get fucking millions thrown at them, they must go to the same strip joints as the politicians who give them their big fat grants.

[Drzacksmith]

b)I tell you ether there experiments are wrong or their sums are, ether why they ought to have a bunch of accountants sent in to wipe the smug looks off their faces, every time they open their pay packets!

[rogermoore27]

Interesting.