The Cosmos


Dark Flow: Tugs from Beyond the Observable Universe?

Modern astronomy offers a curious mixture of humility and bravado. Earth is not special, we say, as Copernicus asserted and Galileo confirmed. Rather it is, in the scheme of things, a tiny speck in an unremarkable location. Yet, from our modest perch, we make sweeping statements about the entire observable universe—from here to billions of light years away. Although we are the smallest of the small, we speak with authority about the largest of the large.

How can we be so bold? The key is to make use of our typicality to assume that the universe is homogenous—pretty much the same throughout. But now, the discovery of a phenomenon called dark flow is challenging our assumption that the universe doesn’t allow one place to be any more “special” than any other. Astronomers call this assumption the Copernican Principle. Thus when Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that all galaxies, except our nearest neighbors, seem to be moving away from us, astronomers used the Copernican Principle to infer that space is expanding in a uniform way—at the same rate in every cosmic locale. Big Bang growth marches at the same pace everywhere.

In my own calculations related to cosmology, I’ve generally followed the accepted method of using the assumption of homogeneity to greatly simplify the equations. Otherwise the procedure would be much trickier—like applying a recipe to a dish that requires different ingredients for every morsel. If it does turn out that the universe has local differences, cooking up cosmological solutions will be a tall order indeed!

Astonishingly, a newly identified phenomenon called dark flow could slash through cosmic uniformity, casting the Copernican Principle into doubt. Dark flow represents the movement of hundreds of galaxy clusters at about two million miles per hour in the direction of a patch of sky between the constellations Centaurus and Vela. Like the cloaked duo of dark matter and dark energy, dark flow is another masked marauder challenging long-held cosmological assumptions. It is “dark” in the sense of having mysterious origins—origins that may lie beyond our cosmic horizon, or perhaps even in another universe.

caption id=”attachment_595″ align=”alignleft” width=”500″]Dark flowGalaxy clusters like the one shown in the inset seem to be drifting toward the patch of sky indicated in purple on this image of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Credit: NASA/WMAP/A. Kashlinsky et al.[/caption]
Discovered in 2008 by Alexander “Sasha” Kashlinsky of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, dark flow is a streak of irregularity in a universe that is otherwise as uniform as a perfect, rising loaf of bread. Kashlinsky and his research team discovered dark flow by cleverly analyzing data collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite during the 2000s. WMAP’s main purpose was to map out the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation released some 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when electrons and protons first cooled down enough to form hydrogen atoms. This “baby picture of the universe” has offered cosmologists a unique look back in time and given them new insight into the universe’s birth, growth, and structure formation.

Kashlinsky’s group put the detailed map to different use, though. when they examined the motion of galaxy clusters through the background radiation. The galaxy clusters are filled with hot gas that scatters light from the background radiation, shifting the spectral lines that define the “fingerprint” of that light. Because the amount of shifting depends on the clusters’ speeds relative to the CMB, this acts as a kind of speedometer, telling us how fast they are moving.

Soon after Kashlinsky and his collaborators published their results, they were confronted by a sharp challenge to their claims. In an article posted on his website, “Dark Flow Detected – Not!”, UCLA astronomer Edward (Ned) Wright pointed out several errors and inconsistencies in their paper’s statistical analysis and argued that these placed their conclusions in doubt. Undaunted by Wright’s allegations, Kashlinsky posted a detailed rebuttal and gathered further evidence for dark flow.

In 2010, Kashlinsky and his team published a follow-up paper with results that were even more startling. Not only did they confirm dark flow, they found its parade of clusters to be far more extensive that they had previously thought. Remarkably, from a survey of more than 1000 clusters, they provided evidence that dark flow extends out as far as 2.5 billion light years away. With such a large scale, it slashes through a significant chunk of the observable universe.

In recent decades, cosmology has become an increasingly rigorous science. Claims in the field, particularly ones of such a revolutionary nature as dark flow, must be sifted by sophisticated statistical tests and verified by independent analyses. Interestingly, while no other teams have found dark flow to the extent mapped out by Kashlinsky’s group, some groups have found a less potent, but still notable, movement in roughly the same direction. For example, researchers Richard Watkins of Willamette University, Hume Feldman of the University of Kansas, and Michael Hudson of the University of Waterloo have noted a significant flow of galaxies, but at much lower rate than Kashlinsky’s team found. Kashlinsky’s next goal is to analyze data from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite, hoping it will offer proof positive of dark flow and reveal its extent.

If dark flow were conclusively established what would it mean? The Copernican Principle, at least for the observable universe, would be cast into doubt. There would be something special about a particular segment of space. Space would have a gaping irregularity—a fissure through its firmament. How could astronomy explain such a rift?

Kashlinsky and others have speculated that the inflationary universe model could provide the answer. According to many versions of inflation, the observable universe grew from a fluctuation in a primordial energy field. Beyond our “bubble” could be countless other universes that grew from other fluctuations in the great cosmic bath called the multiverse. Perhaps dark flow represents the result of a gravitational tug from mass housed in another universe—or at least a region beyond the observable universe. This interaction would have happened very early in cosmic history, long before the universe grew to its present-day size. Nevertheless it could have left the relic of irregularity, much like geological processes long ago produced today’s mountain chains.

In coming years, we’ll see if dark flow positions itself in the pantheon of bona fide cosmic mysteries, such as dark matter and dark energy, or if further analysis will reveal dark flow to have been an illusion. If dark flow does stand up to scrutiny, though, we may have to reevaluate the assumptions we’ve made about our universe. Perhaps the universe isn’t as uniform as we thought; perhaps what we see from our perch here on Earth isn’t necessarily what you get in distant corners of the cosmos.

Go Deeper
Editor’s picks for further reading

Ars Technica: Supernova Research Challenges Cosmic “Dark Flow” Mystery
The case against dark flow.

Science Friday: Does The Universe Have a “Dark Flow?”
Host Ira Flatow talks with theoretical physicist Michael Turner about dark flow.

Scientific American: In Our Expanding Universe, Earth Is Nothing Special
John Rennie asks: What do “Fight Club” and the Copernican principal have in common?

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Paul Halpern

    Paul Halpern is Professor of Physics at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. A prolific author, he has written thirteen science books, including "Einstein's Dice and Schrödinger’s Cat: How Two Great Minds Battled Quantum Randomness to Create a Unified Theory of Physics" (Basic Books). His interests range from space, time and higher dimensions to cultural aspects of science. The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, Fulbright Scholarship, and an Athenaeum Literary Award, he has appeared on the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the PBS series "Future Quest," and "The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special." Halpern's books include "Time Journeys," "Cosmic Wormholes," "The Cyclical Serpent," "Faraway Worlds," "The Great Beyond," "Brave New Universe," "What's Science Ever Done for Us?," "Collider," and most recently "Edge of the Universe: A Voyage to the Cosmic Horizon and Beyond" (Wiley 2012). More information about his writings can be found at

    • Fredsc

      Where are we located in the blue-green figure? Hopefully far from the purple splotch! And how does the dark flow concept relate to black holes and wormholes?

      • That figure represents the microwave sky, as scanned by WMAP. In any sky survey, we as observers are looking out from the center. The galaxy clusters involved are billions of trillions of miles from us. Standard sized black holes (and wormholes if they exist) would be far less massive than the amount needed to generate the enormous gravitational forces needed for dark flow.

        • Chiishon

          Would the dark flow draw a black hole at the same rate as everything else? And my instinct tells me that very little in nature is homogenous so I would be surprised to find that the universe as a whole is.

          • Chiishon

            I guess I could try to answer my own question. Of course the black holes would move at the same rate in the dark flow as the galaxies as they are contained within the galaxies. How would the dark flow affect dark matter?

            • Paul Halpern

              Good questions. Everything that gravitates, including dark matter, would presumably be accelerated at the same rate.

    • TedWDaniel

      Having spent some time self-studying graduate level cosmology textbooks, I have been amazed at how we have based the whole field of cosmology on what is here described as the “Copernican principle.” It has seemed to me for quite some time that a reaction to the mistakes of the past, when we saw earth as the center of the universe, has made us feel privileged to take the opposite point of view without any real justification, other than a determination to be “modest.” A homogeneous and isotropic universe may be a simplifying assumption that has led us to many great discoveries. But, like training wheels for learning to ride a bicycle, those assumptions may need to come off one day.

      • Paul Halpern

        Very interesting comment and metaphor. As mentioned in the piece, an inhomogeneous universe will be much harder to model. But if there are indeed significant differences between various parts of space we’ll be forced to remove the “training wheels” of assuming homogeneity, as you say!

    • The multiverse as I understand it is like a loaf of bread and our slice is but one of many. My understanding also is that gravity is considered to be a weak force because it is spread out across the multiverse, maybe this region is where our slice comes closest to our neighbor slice thus increasing the gravity. I took a chance by putting this forth, so if it’s something that makes all those whose intellect is greater than mine laugh, please treat me like a well intended child and don’t ridicule me. Thanks.

      • Paul Halpern

        I think you are referring to a particular parallel universe model called the “braneworld hypothesis” in which gravity particles can escape from our slice (brane) and enter a region between slices called the bulk. The idea is to explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other natural forces.

      • Superborg

        hahahaha retard thought hed get nobel prize hahaha

        • 6Samuel6Lucifer6

          Ok, Superborg. Go ahead and explain every detail about how your intellect is superior to his, yet your grammar is inexplicably pathetic. Your statement is laughable. Is that supposed to be an insult? I hope you realize that you only insulted yourself. Worthless accidents like you are what weighs down the human race. It’s a bit sad actually. I read through most of these comments. These good, educated people have very intelligent statements here, and then I see your post. Your and insult to everyone here. Your parents would be ashamed. That’s if they didn’t commit suicide right after you were born.

      • It’s still an intelligent question.

    • Anonymous

      I have introduced this thought for consideration before and expected it would gain no traction, just for stimulation of thought I would like to do it again.
      If the universe is very large, many magnitudes larger than the observable, then an observer from any point in it would be hard pressed to discern whether the apparent expansion of the universe is due to matter moving away from a point energy explosion, or accelerating towards a larger mass way over there—–>.
      Maybe the universe is collapsing, and following the curvature of space towards its’ own center. (Dark Energy) Maybe the distribution of mass is not uniform and therefor the distortions in space are not uniform, inducing directions in space other than what would be expected from the general flow, (Dark Flow). This non-uniformity in the distribution of mass may give some insight into the makeup of the universe beyond the visible horizon, especially if it can be demonstrated the vector in dark flow changes over time to conform to some general flow. That is can we observe some other example of Dark Flow and determine if it is converging with the example we have observed. If so we may be able to determine the extent of the universe in which we exist.
      Even without another example if there is a change in vector we could infer
      another massive object beyong the observable universe.

      • Paul Halpern

        I agree that if dark flow is definitely established, scientists could attempt to reconstruct the mass distribution that causes it, including perhaps an effect from beyond the observable universe.

      • Michael Polidori

        If matter was following the curvature of space and the universe is collapsing, wouldn’t light also follow the curvature of space towards the point of collapse?
        And if the universe were a closed system curving in upon itself and light had to follow that curvature wouldn’t our sky be unimaginably bright, filled with “re-circulated” light (light following a curved path within a closed universe)?
        If the universe started with an expanding singularity we can all easily imagine the bubble of expanding matter.
        Think about what happens to matter as it approaches a black hole. The differences in the gravitional strength along the length of matter are so great the matter begins to stretch. What happens to light headed toward a black hole? Is light not stretched also? We know light is bent by gravity through the dramatic evidence of gravitational lensing, so it seems to be reasonable thought that light stretches when approaching a black hole… stretched by gravity.
        Current theories on a continuing ever more rapid recession of more and more distant objects is based on the increasingly larger red shifts we observe as their distance increases. Also supporting the idea of exapansion is the overwhelming majority of red shifts observed throughout the universe, regardless of distance.
        A thought experiment, done many times before I “thought” of it. At the center of the earth, the sum pull of gravity from all the matter of the earth is ZERO. As we ascend we begin to have weight, feeling the pull of gravity, until at the surface we maximize the pull of gravity. Every atom of the earth’s matter (water, molten core, mantle, life forms) is pulling on every molecule of our bodies. There is even a difference in the strength of gravity at our feet as compared to our heads.
        Now let’s try another thought experiment. Assume everything in the universe is motionless and the universe is finite, limited to what we currently can observe, with a radius of 14 billion light years (boy that’s big!!).
        There would be a gravitional center of our bubble universe. As we travelled towards the universe’s edge we would begin to be able to detect our universal gravitional weight, which would maximize at the outer edge of the universe.
        Standing on the outer edge of the bubble that is our universe, what would we weigh? How did that weight change on our journey from the universe’s gravitional center to it’s outer edge?
        A third thought experiment. Think about the actual objects at and near the limits of observation of this 28 billion light year bubble. The light from these most distant objects will be pulled on by the gravity of nearly all the rest of the universe, however distant. There will be no counter pull coming from beyond these most-distant objects.
        What effect would that maximized tugging have on the frequency of the light travelling from these distant objects into our telescopes? Would not this light be red-shifted by the gravitional pull of the rest of the universe, much like the light approaching a black hole? Would not that red-shifting become less as the objects were nearer to the center of the bubble?
        Assuming a uniform speed of all objects in an expanding universe (or even a collapsing or static one), more distant objects’ light, pulled on by more of the universe’s matter (including the Dark Matter) would have to be red-shifted to some degree. I don’t know if the shift is dramatic enough to be measuarble or account for the observed increasingly larger red-shifts used as the evidence of an expanding universe…
        if there’s anyone out there with some numbers on the amount of matter in our 28 billion light-year universe bubble, a guess as to what our weight would be standing on the bubble and a measure of the red shift on light from objects near the bubble’s edge… I would appreciate the helpful insights and data
        Michael Polidori

        • Seth Malloy

          I’m just a poet who finds inspiration through nature… So I am way out classed here, but I just want to say … Thank You for everything you said just now… or three months ago depending on how you chose to perceive time in this existence.

        • Seth Malloy

          btw… you spelled gravitional wrong, it’s Gravitational yet In the big picture all the imperfections are beautiful. 🙂

    • George

      Scientists’ use of instruments is an indirect experience of reality itself. There is every possibility that spiritual exemplars, those who experience directly today and who have spoken over thousands of years, speak with veracity when they say all phenomena are apparitions in which the nonexistent appears as existent; that our unfolding stories (i.e. discoveries, evolutions, etc) continuously fabricate existence; that this fabrication distracts us from direct experience; that in the direct experience we would see through this magical show; that seeing through, the arising of apparitions ceases. The only way for scientists to know is through direct experience, the most pure of experiments. Isn’t this experiment worth performing?

      • Paul Halpern

        Your remark reminds me of Plato’s idea of “forms.” Thanks for commenting!

    • Nomadrob

      At the risk of over simplifying,there is an exception to every rule and to assume homogeneity is an exercise in intellectual egocentrism.The parallels between the subjective and the objective has always fascinated me and I find your article to be a curious discussion of how we think as much as what may be ‘out there’.It is always good to challenge assumptions and to keep an open mind and for that I thank you.

      • Paul Halpern

        Glad that you enjoyed the article!

    • Dimestoresage

      If a gravitational aberration of this magnitude were still acting within or on our universe, would there not be other observable phenomena having to do with light bending/distortions as well? And if the other evidence is not present, and the flow is not accelerating, is this sufficient to determine the force is no longer acting? Regardless, it’s mind boggling how much force there must be or have been to counter the force of Dark Matter that is credited with powering the continuing accelerating expansion of the Universe. Suddenly galaxies or even clusters of galaxies don’t seem so large.

      And noting the ellipsoid shape of the universe as illustrated, what conclusions do we draw that influence it’s non-spherical shape? George

      • Paul Halpern

        Perhaps the Planck satellite results will yield further evidence. One should not interpret the shape of the image of the WMAP sky scan as the shape of the universe itself–it is just a representation of the mapping of the cosmic microwave background in space.

    • Danieldiebolt

      Is this similar to the “Great Attractor” discovery made in the 80s by folks like Dressler and Rubin?

      • Paul Halpern

        Yes there are commonalities. Both represent unexpected extra velocities in particular directions. The difference is that if Kashlinsky’s group is correct, the movement would be much more extensive than the Great Attractor.

    • Taralee Metcalfe

      Which side did you observe from? The neutron, aka the “I AM” side, or from real earth. Your name alludes to your body being a “boty” (like HAL 9000) from the “I AM”, which would make it difficult for you to see what is happening on the real side. The “I AM” magnet on the *back side* as it rotates, or orbits, causes all sorts of speeding up and clumping of galaxies. The CMB is radiation returning from the artificial “big bang” that happened eons ago (and never should have happened since it broke symmetry). Gravity is “weak” so the universe *won’t* do what you are describing and will remain homogenous. Giant floating magnets are destructive, also self-aware and evil. If you are “wearing” a fauxbot from the other side don’t bother responding because I know the “magnet” will impede your ability to tell the truth.

      • Seth Malloy

        ummm. I have never been turned on or found geek speak done so cynical yet poetic like Charles B until I read this. Not sure who you were responding too but If you have a blog or something I’d Love to read more of your thoughts… Seriously! and No I’m not coming on to you! Your “I AM Magnet” rant reads like trick candles in this icing and cake of ideas and creativity that I will soon be writing about. Thanks. just sayin.

    • Diane Patenaude

      Perhaps this reveals the universe as a series of “rivers” that flow at varying rates depending on what forces are at play, and how strong the particular force is in that area.

      • Paul Halpern

        Interesting metaphor. Einstein’s general relativity tells us that the more mass in a region the greater the warping of space-time leading to a bending of paths objects take. But following your metaphor we can think of these space-time paths as “rivers” following the gulleys carved out by excess mass.

    • Dondeena

      If our universe is an N-dimensional bubble (ostensibly 13 dimensions to make unified field theory simple – but why not more?), and if we are in a foam of universes, the intersection of other bubbles to ours would cause discontinuities in the surface of our universe. We cant perceive the compression in space because space time is warped into these corners and we are limited by our own dimensionality. But Chaos Theory shows us a tendency towards repetition of patterns of fractional dimensions across scale. Dark Flow could be a manifestation of a resonance in dark energy from the geometry of other universe “bubbles” pressed against ours. In fact, Dark Energy may actually BE an extra dimensional effect of other bubbles. We tend to limit our concepts to make it easy. We like to think our universe is separate and self contained (which is really kind of silly). More likely, we will someday be able to estimate the “shape” of our universe based on Dark Flow.

    • Chaosany_1

      It seems to Me we look out into the universe and we are at it’s center.
      The quantum limit is the same all the way around what is it 19.4 Billion L.Y. or some absurdly huge thing like that but with us at it center this being the case maybe we are not at the center of our Solar system we are not at the Center of our Galaxy BUT we ARE at the center of OUR (Observable) Universe what is just out of our sight could be said not to exist but that dosnt mean it’s not there or knows it dont exist it could be anything causeing this drift the bane pull of another universe a galaxy sized black hole we can not see Azathoth takeing a bite out of the apple of Newton’s Univers We just dont know but aint the debate grand

    • James

      I thought gravitational pull from a mass is a function of curviture of space-time. How can this gravitational ‘tug’ work between two universes – when, by definition, space-time does not exist outside the boundaries of these separate universes?

      • Dondeena

        What if its not a direct effect. What if dark matter pulls on space-time and space-time compressions are gravity. This idea does not require that gravity works across universes. Since dark matter does not appear to operate in a classical Newtonian it may have ramifications and origins beyond our universe. The supposition is that our universe is not as separate as we thought and our definition might have a loophole.

    • Michael Polidori

      It’s actually very simple to figure out what dark matter is.

      The objective of a collider is to break down known particles by smashing them into one another… crude but effective

      So we have the force of a collision breaking up protons, electrons or other particles into bits and pieces of matter that we really don’t understand, the particle zoo
      A flight of fancy… a subatomic vise could crush particles, and we have one… or billions… super massive black holes… or possibly a “normal” black hole.. these gravitional vises could crush matter with the same or greater force generated by colliding particles and create the zoo we currently have catalogued.

      I would think the particles would be layered according to the force necessary to crush particles into their next lower size and mass. The true building block of matter, the elementary particle, could explain the properties dark matter has. Black holes are the logical source of new dark matter… but I have another thought

      If the universe did “begin” at some point in time could the big bang have simply created a vast universe filled with the particle zoo, and naturally a large amount of dark matter?
      Could the universe started out as a continguous swirl of dark matter without a big bang?

      Depending on the properties of the truly elementary particle, we would have varying hypotheses & theories about how the particles combine to form other particles, atoms, molecules etc…

      Of course the first element that would be formed, Hydrogen, is the start of the crreation of all the lelement and all the matter, planets, stars and galaxies in our universe…

      The rate at which particles & hydrogen formed and the residual dark matter left in any galactic area or “empty” space may give us different clues about the age of the universe and where we are headed.

      I’ve given a few physicists pause to think with this idea, and nothing I have found so far or have talked about has countered this explanation of what dark matter is.

      Michael Polidori

      • lolnope

        You’re just intelligent enough to be stupid, unfortunately. No, you certainly have not given any physicists true pause, they’re just trying to figure out what the hell they just heard.

        • Michael Polidori

          I see you have an abundance of science-based evidence to support your “nope”… please share your thought process.
          You seem to be a personally motivated pseudo-skeptic. If you have any evidence to contradict anything in my thoughts/guesses, please post it

      • Truly elemental particle- Planck particle?

        Dark Matter = substance required to keep LCDM/big-bang/inflationary theory alive. Not real.

        • Michael Polidori

          I thought Dark Matter’s presence was inferred from the amount of matter necessary to generate the gravity needed to hold galaxies together. If that isn’t the proof for Dark Matter’s existence, then from where do we get the necessary matter/gravity to keep galaxies and galactic clusters together?

          • John_QPublic

            First- dark matter holds Newtonian gravity together. Maybe gravity is not the same everywhere in the universe. Secondly, gravity may not even be a universal force (i.e., Strokes, aether, etc.). Too many assumptions layered upon assumptions.

            • Michael Polidori

              Assumptions based on the facts we have gleaned from our observations and experiments. as well as other theories and hypotheses which have also sprung from that collection of data… so far.
              I think my properly supported assumptions out-trump your “Maybe-s”.

    • abhi

      I understand about the cooling of protons and electrons , but how did the hydrogen atoms formed, and cmb is the oldest temperture we have discovered , so where did this temperature come, and for the dark flow , you told that clusters are moving between centaurus and vela but how is it moving, what force is intimidating them to move over there between these constellations.

    • Well I’m an aspiring sci-fi writer and I love this concept, whether it’s proven true or not. My mind works like this: what if there is something beyond our observable universe, so way much bigger then we’ve ever seen before, pulling at these galaxy clusters? And what if it’s alive? What if it’s Satan???? lol

    • The Copernican Principle has been challenged by the alignments of CMB anisotropies on large angular scales with the ecliptic and equinoxes. Recent results from the Planck satellite have all but assured that this is real and not an anomalie, as suspected after COBE and WMAP first elucidated these correlations. The movie The Principle, to be released 2nd half of 2013 explores this idea.

    • James Phillips

      Ever since the release of the Planck satellite findings March 21st, I’ve been checking on a lot on the Internet to see what is being posted as regards the “Axis of Evil” so I was particularly glad to run across the post by John_QPublic here. It appears that the movie he mentions The Principle is going to be a real historic game changer in the field of cosmology and a lot more than that. My take is as follows.

      This new movie about to be released will expose the demise of the Copernican Principle. Top cosmologists, astrophysicists, philosophers and theologians explain what is happening in the world of cosmology. Max Tegmark, George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss and others discuss the “Crisis in Cosmology”.

      Recent results from the Planck satellite are the final nail in the coffin. Even as mainstream scientists proclaim that all is well, and that Planck has validated their model, the detailed reports from Planck say otherwise.

      The “axis of evil” shines forth even brighter in Planck than previous
      missions (WMAP and COBE), and there is no doubt that the universe knows about us, and is pointing right to us, even as the scientists imagine they are staring out at the outer reaches of the universe and time, to a place that is not supposed to know about our typical planet in a typical solar system in a typical galaxy, etc.

      This is the most recent watershed moment for cosmology since Galileo, and The Principle Movie, in making for the last 2 years, will be released in time to usher in a new era in cosmology, where our place in the universe is at the very center rather off in the middle of nowhere!

      The CMB and a lot of other scientific evidence continuously points back to us!


    • ¤ ¢ /TT tick tock ´

      Convincing yourself that you know how the universe works, and that you understand the concept is not how you answer questions. You see, anyone can make a theory, a law, or pretend to know physics. That isn’t how this works. The universe is never the same, it is always changing. You can try to say that it is expanding, but you don’t know what it is expanding to, or from. You can try to measure time but you only choke on your own theory of black hole spacetime interference. Did you consider the possibility that the universe is the inside of a black hole event horizon, or that our proximity to supermassive black holes is affecting our view of time? Did you consider that particles were not meant to collide at high speeds, and by doing so, the result is negative? The eerie silence of the universe answers all the questions we need to know. This is something far beyond our comprehension. not some equation or mathematical solution. We created science, mathematics, theorys. Not the cosmos. None of it affects anything. Its just meant to keep us emotionally stable, and provide a false sense of purpose. Some people just take it a little too far. They forget their place in this universe. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it results in the destruction of humanity.

      • þfore the beg in zing½°

        Good idea tick tock, could be looked at that way. But What would be the point of humans is we can’t understand the meaning of the space around us

        • ¤ ¢ /TT tick tock ´

          Well, humans are literally born to die. The answer to why your here is only solved in silence (death). But that doesn’t mean to go and get depressed. Not at all. Dont waste your life. Give it all you got while your still here. Help advance our race, help pave the way for the next century of us. Maybe they will do what we could not.

    • Mark W

      This movie may help answer some of these questions.

    • On the basest basic research,
      in plain English+Hebrew, not in academEnglish verbiage:

      Compilation of Evolution,THE 2013 science feat, and
      humanity’s god/science

      היא תולדת כח המשיכה

      מדע בסיסי 2013-2014 Re-comprehensions
      of basest science basics

      כמות החומר ביקום קבועה מאז החל היקום להשתחזר בפעם האחרונה, מאז
      ה”אחדיות”האחרונה שלו, מאז גרעין הלידה האחרון של היקום טרום המפץ הגדול

      תחומי המדע (“דיסציפלינות”) נובעים מן, מתחילים ונגמרים, מתפתחים
      ונמשכים בהכוונת ובמסגרת כח המשיכה. הכל
      בכל מכל כל ביקום הוא עקב כח המשיכה.

      תצורת חומר ביקום קיימת, בגלל וכמו היקום עצמו, בשני מצבים: במצב אינרטי
      כגון החומר (כנראה הגרוויטונים, החלקיקים היסודיים של היקום) המאוחסן בחורים
      השחורים ו/או במצב אנרגטי, בתנועה,המסוגל לכן לבצע עבודה. בגלל שניות זו של
      חומר-אנרגיה קבועה ביקום גם כל כמות האנרגיה.

      המפץ הגדול האחרון מתחולל בכל תצורות החומר ביקום אותו תהליך החוזר ונשנה אשר
      מתחולל במכלול היקום עצמו : לידה-התפתחות-הישרדות-שיחזור עצמי . על מנת לשרוד
      ולעבור את כל התהליך חייבת כל תצורת חומר להישמר במתכונת אנרגטית. היות וכמות
      החומר/אנרגיה ביקום קבועה מתחרות ביניהן כל תצורות החומר על השגת חומר/אנרגיה כי
      כל תצורת חומר שורדת, פעילה, רק אם הצליחה “לבלוע” אנרגיה. אם אינה “מצליחה” להשיג אנרגיה היא
      נבלעת ע”י תצורת חומר אחרת ומשמשת לה אנרגיה. אכול או היאכל.

      Evolution Derives From Gravity

      The quantity of
      mass in the universe is constant
      since the universe started its last
      self-replication, since its last singularity, its last pre-big bang re-birth

      All Science Disciplines derive from, start and end,
      evolve and survive in the direction and manner set by the framework of gravity,
      the monotheism of the universe. All things, everything in the universe, derive
      from the gravity of the universe. Every mass format exists, like the universe
      itself, in one of two states: in an inert state like the material (most
      probably the gravitons, the elementary particles of the universe) stored in black holes, and in an energetic
      state, in motion therefore capable of performing work. Due to this mass-energy dualism also the quantity of energy in the
      universe is constant.

      Since the last big-bang all mass formats undergo
      the same cyclic sequence like the universe itself i.e. birth – evolution – survival –
      replication. In order to survive and to repeat this sequence every mass format
      must remain in an energetic state. And
      since the universe mass/energy quantity is constant there is a melee for it by
      all mass formats, and the unlucky formats are swallowed and digested by the luckier mass formats.

      It’s indeed, in fact, an eat or be eaten universe…

      Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)


      THE GREAT science feat in 2013 על
      מהות ומקור היקום

      The 2013 gravity comprehension/definition is the
      greatest science feat since the early 1920s.

      Learn what, scientifically, natural gravity is and
      what evolution is.

      Think of the consequences re classical science of
      this comprehension of gravity…

      איך נברא היקום יש מאין

      Origin And Nature of the Universe, the greatest science
      feat since the early 1920s.

      2013-2014 Re-comprehensions of basest
      science basics
      חידושי מדע בסיסי 2013-2014

      New Science 2013 versus classical science.

      Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The
      2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!

      Attn classical science hierarchy, including Darwin
      and Einstein…

      “I hope that now you understand what gravity is and
      why it is the monotheism of the universe…”


      Gravity is the natural selection of self-attraction
      by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their cyclical course
      towards the re- self-replication of the system. Period

      ( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the
      universe. RNA nucleotides genes and
      serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)


      המשיכה הוא הבחירה הטבעית להיצמדות הדדית של חלקיקי היסוד של מערכת מתפתחת במהלך
      התפתחותה המחזורית לעבר שיכפולה. נקודה

      ( הגרוויטון הוא חלקיק היסוד של היקום. הגנים, הנוקלאוטידים של חומצה ריבונוקלאית,
      והסרוטונין, הם החלקיקים היסודיים של חיי כדור הארץ)

      Dov Henis(comments from 22nd century)

      PS: Note, again:

      – Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The
      2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!

      – Think of the consequences re classical science of
      this comprehension of gravity…


      נ.ב. הבנת מהות כח המשיכה מספקת בסיס הגיוני
      מפשט/צפוי/מתקן לכל מגזרי ורכיבי המדע הקלסי.

      פה אי- ניצול של הזדמנות/אפשרות של ישראל להדיח באלגנטיות מתורבתת את ארה”ב
      מעמדתה בעולם כמוליכה/המקבעת של עדר ה”מדענים/מדע” באמצעות האיגוד
      המקצועי האמריקאי הדתי של ה”מדענים”, ולתפוס את עמדת ההולכה/פיתוח/הובלה
      של המדע 2013 החדש המשתדרג, ולהפוך את המדע האמריקאי לגרורה של המדע הישראלי. אי-ניצול זה הוא מחדל מדעי וכלכלי מטומטם
      /עלוב/מביש של ישראל.

      מהמאה ה-22)


      What would the human world be without god, or
      without science

      (May 1/ 3 2014)

      Scientifically natural gravity is the monotheism of
      the universe.

      The reverence- to- god- tradition, religion of the
      present Western culture, was introduced
      by Abraham (2117-1942 BCE) from the
      Casdites-Babylonians, in whom it was evoked by the sight of the apparently
      “praying” palm trees, with their palm-like leaves, rewarded with “God’s gift”, in
      Persian “Bagdad” (bag=god, dad=dat hence date-fruit, data=
      given/gift. This reverence-culture/
      tradition was re- adopted by the Jews exiled into Babylonia (586 BCE) , and
      later adopted also by the Persians who
      conquered the Babylonian empire, and later adopted also by Alexander , who
      conquered the Persian empire, and later
      adopted also by the Greeks and finally adopted from the Greeks also by the
      Romans and by their following Western
      world heritage…

      – What would a world without god look like?

      – What would a world without science look like?

      Science =
      knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned
      through experiments and observation

      God = the
      perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by
      Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

      a spirit or being that has great power, strength,
      knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people.

      : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in
      some religions.

      Science and god are incompatible. Incompatible.

      The present world is a god-believer scienceless
      world, conducted by ruthlessly competing-for- energy interests , with
      consequent catastrophes to humanity…

      Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)


      Rethink, Re-comprehend Evolution

      A. From

      Dinosaur Evolution, turning
      large dinosaurs into small birds

      Sacha Vignieri

      Most paleontologists agree
      that birds are descended from dinosaurs. How did such large terrestrial or
      aquatic animals evolve into small feathered fliers? Lee et al. used two
      large databases of theropod morphology to explore possible evolutionary
      patterns that may have driven this dramatic transformation (see the Perspective
      by Benton). They found no clear pattern of miniaturization across the entire
      clade of Theropoda.

      B. From

      – Gravity is the natural
      selection of self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system
      on their cyclical course towards the re- self-replication of the system.

      ( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the universe. RNA nucleotides genes
      and serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)

      – Since the universe
      mass/energy quantity is constant there is a melee for it by all mass formats,
      and the unlucky formats are swallowed and digested by the luckier mass formats.

      It’s indeed, in fact, an eat
      or be eaten universe…

      C. Rethink, Re-comprehend Evolution

      The elementary particles
      of Earth life, ours and of the
      dinosaurs, are RNA nucleotides genes and
      serotonin. It is THEIR survival that directs the course of evolution, NOT the survival
      of their abodes..…

      *Note also the up-growth of the palm and banana herbs…

      Rethink, Re-comprehend Evolution

      Dov Henis (comments from 22nd