那可是很多中微子啊!但你很难去计算你看不见的东西，甚至，准确地说，是无法计算的。如果你熟悉物理学的实际行为，你就会认识到，这些粗略的猜测，无论有多么合理的推论，都是极不精确的。人们通常认为2的因素就足以进行预测，有时10的因素是我们能做的最好的预测。我已经很长时间不会做微积分了，但即使我在一定程度上能够理解数学，我也在想，物质大部分时间都在被自己“干扰”，这一事实不应该被视为一个需要提出的问题。量子定位是描述一个粒子可能位置的曲线，因为它在移动的过程中会消失。但是，当它不在那里/那时可计算时，它没有物理特性的假设是不被形式假设所证明的，也不被物理证据所排除。暗物质可能只是物质与自身相异的残余性质。

The measure and division of the Universe be it sub-atomically in super colliders in the search of god particles or astrophysically separating dark from light only leads to greater questions, more uncertainty or doubt. The solution to this manmade doubt can be found by removing the flaws that created it. Removing measure from the equation unites or makes the Universe whole again. This wholeness is the truth they seek. Try it and see, clearly. =

If by 'they' you mean physicists, I think you don't understand what we generally seek or why. Generally speaking, we wish to understand measurements well enough to predict other measurements adequately, and there is also æsthetic appreciation of the explanations and how they fit together, or at least appreciation that they don't.

I think you're speaking of a different type of knowing, which some of us seek when we're 'off the clock', and in which others of us have little or no interest?I am one of the latter, as I think that sort of knowledge is in the end mire about the structure of our own brains than about the Universe outside ourselves, and if I were interested in that I would have become instead a neuroscientist.

An interesting thought, but when a galaxy is observed, by definition any superposition of possible quantum states collapses, and the uncertainties remaining in this exceedingly macroscopic measurement are negligible. One of the boundary conditions of quantum theory is that on a large scale it matches classical physics as modified by General Relativity, which at the speeds and distances involved isn't much.

杰拉德，如果你说的测量是指自然或宇宙的测量，那么自然或宇宙的测量是什么?自然真的是可测量的吗?还是仅仅是一个让爱因斯坦反感的骰子游戏?=

DARK EXPLAINING
I have ranted on too much in this forum against science as explainer. But I can?t resist it! John pretty much summed it up when he said that whoever defines the terms gets to provide the explanation because they have presented the only ?valid? (self-defined) framework for the question. And I argue that the greater the ?wonder-content? of the ?solution? the more it is accepted, happily. But not ?everything? needs to be ?explained?; as a quantum mechanics philosopher once asked John and Ken, ? Why do you think everything needs to be explained?? This is not a rhetorical question. Why, indeed?
Now don?t get me wrong, it is great fun to chart the vectors on everything, and finding that they don?t predict exactly the motion (and energy!?!) of everything is a blast.
But Gerald this ?different kind of knowing? (better: ?exploring?) is what philosophy is all about. And neuroscience (plugging people into brain scanners and looking at places where red, green and blue lights light) has nothing to help a philosopher explore. The brain is not the mind. Gerald, as one committed to the explainings by science, I urge you to stay far away from philosophy, which will never satisfy your hunger ?to know? in the (very limited) way you think of knowing something. Hey, wouldn?t there be multiple ways of ?knowing? in these myriad parallel quantum frames? But as MJA implies, examine your urges to measure things, and to state with certainty that measurement is the measure of everything. See the tautology? If you think that ?another way of knowing? is nutty, just how nutty is the whole dark matter thing, entirely made up on the stuff we can?t know. The inferences are almost entirely conjectural extensions?lot?s of fun, but ?knowing?? Don?t think so.
What I really want to know is how much grant money, and publication fees, and tenure salaries are the result of dark matter study applications? Spend the money trying to find ways to clean up water, scientist. At least no philosopher gets a grant to sit in a chair and think about things.

The measurable fact of an expanding universe doesn't make sense in terms of the current paradigms. That cannot be overlooked. I just suggest we need to look closer to home rather than invent outlandish notions or exaggerated extrapolations of highly underdeveloped and incomplete surmises. I think, knowing what we know about space/time, there is a case to be made for a negative gravity, not a repulsion, but an attraction that operates most at a distance. If matter out of phase with itself pulls on the universe as the inverse of the inverse square law, most intense at the most distant and inversely diminished is proportion to the square of that distance, the issue of the expanding universe might have a candidate explanation. If space/time really is enfolded upon itself as Relativity suggests, then matter out of phase with itself might be effectively exerted its properties at the outermost extremity of the universe. And maybe this could be described mathematically to see if its would fit the model, but I don't currently have the skills for the calculation.
In any case, while it is true that science must take as given everything outside its immediate issue, a philosopher is not free to do so. If you cannot define defend and explain every term, what it is means and how it is derived, you are not doing philosophy at all. As I've said elsewhere, the most lethal critique of a philosopher is that he has not justified his terms. Nothing can be taken as given or on faith. "It just is" is not saying anything at all, it's just noise. And this is the problem Wittgenstein passes over. Because the ladder he says we must kick aside, in silence, is just noise. We haven't explained anything. We haven't yet even begun to do philosophy.

Marugai, Yes!!!
Call it ego but sometimes I think I am the only One.
Thanks, =

我最近读了一些关于宇宙学的书;随着时间的推移。刚刚看过罗杰·彭罗斯的《时间周期》在这篇文章中，我发现我和他多年来一直有一个共同的想法。彭罗斯谈到了暗物质和他称之为共形循环宇宙学的东西。他还提出并强化了这样一种观点:在宇宙大爆炸之前可能存在着什么，以及大爆炸是否真的是时间、宇宙的开始，以及我们所知的生命的起源。我自己也曾问过这样的问题:那一声巨响是否是永恒的、普遍的万物的开始，或者它是否只是一个更大的(甚至更永恒的)永恒的重要事件(即，宇宙在任何一种大爆炸之前很久就存在了;在任何意义上都没有我们可以真正理解的开端;因此，时间的概念在任何宇宙尺度上都是毫无意义的。物理学是一门迷人的学科，彭罗斯的观点引人注目，无论人们是否能够理解和/或同意它们。 Dark matter and dark energy may or may not be finally revealed. And just so with quantum gravity. I am thinking, though, that there are things our knowledge will never permit us to know...without a lot more direct experience. Scientific thinkers (and some others) almost always raise more questions than they can answer.
Neuman