Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Find Huge Hole in Universe

realwx writes "Astronomers are surprised by a recent discovery of a space hole that is nearly a billion light years across. "Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size," said researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota. Rudnick's colleague Liliya R. Williams also had not anticipated this finding. "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota.""

628 comments

  1. Well I guess the joke is on us. by earnest+murderer · · Score: 5, Funny

    God is giving you the goatse.

    --
    Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    1. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could this post be modded troll? If I could actually be bothered to register an account here and post enough to earn the right to mod points, I would totally give this a funny mod.

    2. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The look on the lead astronomer's face when she found this discovery is priceless!

    3. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, but if that big goatse hole in the sky is the goatse receiver, I'd hate to see the goatse giver's (presumably God's) equipment!

    4. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by serialdogma · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not quite; it is no so much a hole in the goatse sense, but rather an lack of anything at all. If anything it is where the Invisible Pink Unicorn lives.

    5. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by QuickFox · · Score: 4, Funny

      God is giving you the goatse. That explains why He put it in the constellation Eridanus.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    6. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

    7. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by alexj33 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Boy, it would be nice if people could get points by bashing the beliefs of non-Christians on this site too.

    8. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by crontabminusell · · Score: 0, Redundant
      From TFA:

      There is a "remarkable drop in the number of galaxies" in a region of sky in the constellation Eridanus, Rudnick said. "Eridanus", eh?
    9. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1

      ... I would have modded you funny.

    10. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      How would that go?

      "No god? How do you plan to sell bibles if you don't believe in god?!?!?!"

      Good luck with that.

    11. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to see here.

    12. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      ROFL! Whoever modded this guy down has not had the misfortune to have seen goatse.

    13. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, first you need hate or angst or whatever it is that causes some weirdos to ridicule the beliefs of others.

      Second, you need people with mod points that are dumb enough to think it's worth mod points.

      I've seen plenty of "Christians" with the first, so maybe there's a dearth of the second.

    14. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by tomzyk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be so anal about it; he's only trying to make a joke.

      --
      Karma: NaN
    15. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      It's the void people. It may be mined, but at least the Planet Kobol (which looks a lot like Egypt) is on the other side!

    16. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Himring · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haha! I love to make fun of God, cuz God's a got a sense of hu....

      NO CARRIER

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    17. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by archen · · Score: 1

      *sigh* this is one of those times when I feel that I MUST click on a link and wait for the image to load while praying it isn't tub girl..

    18. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that there was a flikr tag for "first goatse" I just laughed for 20 minutes straight
      Thanks!!!

      --
      music lover since 1969
    19. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      May the FSM forgive your heresy.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      OK, let's get a grip here. More bad jokes will tear this thread apart.

    21. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by cmburns69 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why don't you guys just put a cork in it! I'm trying to work here!

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    22. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Be sure to look at the whole "first goatse" set - he has one of Ron Jeremy looking at it.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    23. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bend light waves around my enormous disco party fortress if I were god, too. Humans would be such a bore. blah blah about this problem or that. STFU already, Earthlings.

    24. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      One ASStroNOMIcal hole... Talk about "warped" space...

      Or, is it subspace or fluidic space. Is it a quantum singularity, or a subspace slipstream?

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    25. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by jcgf · · Score: 1

      Jews and Muslims also worship "God". So I think this does a nice job of bashing the beliefs of the big 3. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass and laugh, it's funny.

    26. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Pepebuho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you suggesting a hands off approach to this deep issue?

    27. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, first you need hate or angst or whatever it is that causes some weirdos to ridicule the beliefs of others. Why with the hate, why can't it be because they're just silly.

      I've seen plenty of "Christians" with the first, so maybe there's a dearth of the second. I'll give you that, I've never encountered anyone as hateful as a religious person.
    28. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by SpaceballsTheUserNam · · Score: 0

      A+ first post

      --
      \.
    29. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Just be glad they didn't find this on Uranus.

    30. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by serialdogma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You FSM freaks, your faith is illogical.

    31. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it a Hawking-Hole...

    32. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by bayman55 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is not a hole. Maybe it is something between us and that part of the universe. Something huge this way comes? Hmmmmm.

    33. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by kabz · · Score: 1

      Well at least she looks happier than this zune listener.

      --
      -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    34. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can think of so many things I'd like to do with that woman (does she have any buttons on her shirt fastened?), but no, let's show her goatse instead.

      And you wonder why you're all virgins.

    35. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Could be worse, I suppose... Imagine if his bum was really hairy.

      --
      C|N>K
    36. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's a huge space condom...

    37. Re:Well I guess the joke is on us. by QMO · · Score: 1

      Well, first you need hate or angst or whatever it is that causes some weirdos to ridicule the beliefs of others.

      Why with the hate, why can't it be because they're just silly.

      Because being mean isn't silly. It may not be hate, but it's a lot closer to hate than to silly.
      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  2. hm.. by tpwch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe its a civilization that managed to blow themselves out of history trought an accident somehow? If it is, I hope we can control that technology better when we advance enough to have it.

    --
    Posted by a Debian GNU/Linux user
    1. Re:hm.. by phagstrom · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just digging a hole to build a new bypass.

    2. Re:hm.. by austior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the civilization blew itself up, we would probably see some sign of the super-heated matter being ejected from the region. More likely is that the civilization gobbled up all the available matter and then decided to slip into a universe with favorable physical properties and more room for computation.

    3. Re:hm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The answer: Mantrid drones

    4. Re:hm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe its a civilization that managed to blow themselves out of history trought an accident somehow? If it is, I hope we can control that technology better when we advance enough to have it.

      Yes, this seems like the most reasonable explaination.

    5. Re:hm.. by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Funny

      NO IT ISN'T!!!!

      It's the MUTANT STAR GOAT!!!!

      Those Golgafrincham's were right after all!

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    6. Re:hm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they detonated the dreaded solarbonite bomb?

    7. Re:hm.. by JochenBedersdorfer · · Score: 1

      Why is the parent post moderated as Insightful? A civilization spanning millions of galaxies and they all blow themselves up at the same time, eradicating all matter, somehow get rid of the radiation? Come on, guys. You can do better

    8. Re:hm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, we could do a lot better, but we'd rather spend the day posting bullshit on slashdot, thank you.

    9. Re:hm.. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      I once had a job in the state public service and we had telephone cleaners who came around every week. And a good thing too, we could have been wiped out by a disease transmitted by dirty telephones.

    10. Re:hm.. by WheelDweller · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, just another fault of George Bush, somehow. :)

      Or how about this? How about...there's a lot of unknown out there!

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    11. Re:hm.. by jimstapleton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, I think your view is way too optimistic :-(

      It is the great emptiness (think Alan Dean Foster's Commonwealth universe)

      On the bright side, it won't be here to eat us for at least 10,000 years, by which time, Flinx, the Krang, the Ulru-Uljurans, etc. will hopefully manage to destroy it.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    12. Re:hm.. by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      I would probably laugh at that but I have a HotBlack concert to get to.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    13. Re:hm.. by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Their combined thoughts became so heavy that they caved in on themselves. Now not even thought can escape.

      Moral: Don't worry, have another ginnan tonix or what ever you call it on your planet.

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    14. Re:hm.. by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a civilization that managed to blow themselves out of history trought an accident somehow? If it is, I hope we can control that technology better when we advance enough to have it.

      More likely it's like, "Dammit! They found us!!"

    15. Re:hm.. by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More likely still is that the server responsible for simulating that section of the universe crashed and hasn't been restarted yet (or will never restart). The civilization there probably started using too many quantum calculations causing the simulation to take too long doing useless things like reversing encryption keys instead of sending us more photons.

      In any case, I would not worry about this since we'll probably just be rolled back to a known-good state once the problem has been fixed.

    16. Re:hm.. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they like their privacy and decided to cloak themselves.

    17. Re:hm.. by smparadox · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a civilization that managed to blow themselves out of history trought an accident somehow? If it is, I hope we can control that technology better when we advance enough to have it.
      Yes, this seems like the most reasonable explaination.

      That score of 0 is the numerical representation of the sound of your sarcasm whooshing over the heads of thousands...
      --
      "I am become Gerund, Destroyer of Verbs"
    18. Re:hm.. by Mozk · · Score: 1

      I'll have to agree with you, but really not everything is known about matter and energy. Perhaps they were so much more advanced than we are that there was some sort of "explosion", but not in the conventional way that we understand it.

      --
      No existe.
    19. Re:hm.. by Randolpho · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked at your cell phone after using it on a hot, sunny day?

      Yeah, telephone sanitation ain't all *that* bad. 'Course, they make wipes for that now, so we can still safely cut out the middlemen -- as long as we're not too busy dreaming stuff up and doing stuff to remember to wipe our phones...

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    20. Re:hm.. by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a civilization that managed to blow themselves out of history trought an accident somehow? If it is, I hope we can control that technology better when we advance enough to have it.

      What, you mean like a particle accelerator inadvertently bumping the universe out of the false vacuum we may be living in, destroying everything at the speed of light? I've always found that a particularly entertaining scary story, mostly because it's entirely plausible... :-)

    21. Re:hm.. by soxos · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about the restaurant they found located right next to it. Make your reservations now and bank deposit now.

    22. Re:hm.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I figured Galactus just went on a eating binge for a while.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    23. Re:hm.. by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      Thats preposterous, everyone knows that it's just the empty side of the universe!

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    24. Re:hm.. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        That depends. Are the techs local, or out of this dimensional code?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  3. More info here by Mr+Europe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now this is *big* news ! The scientific world is waiting for good explanations.

    More info here (with pictures..)
    http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/index.shtml

    1. Re:More info here by UserGoogol · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    2. Re:More info here by Randomly · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:More info here by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Funny

      ``More info here (with pictures..)''

      Pictures?! Of nothing?!

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:More info here by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      That's a better article than the original. Thanks.

      I'm confused on one point. (This is not a flame). Why would photons going through a void lose energy? OK, I will accept the statement that photons gain energy going through dark matter, but the losing energy part sounds like the standard BS of baseline budgeting. I got a 5% increase last year, but equal funding and no increase this year so it's a budget cut. Why wouldn't this just be the same thing? Photons get a boost going through dark matter and no boost whatsoever going through a void?

      Someone please enlighten me.

    5. Re:More info here by naam00 · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like photons _gain_ a tiny amount of energy when traveling through populated space, due to dark energy (see OP link). Maybe they don't lose anything in the void.

    6. Re:More info here by bluntshell · · Score: 2, Funny

      you mean 'hole'...

    7. Re:More info here by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking is that nothing simply something that they lack the ability to detect, or is that nothing actually nothing. Matter is energy, and most forms of expressed energy are just energetic particles, so what would be the result of total matter energy conversion where no energetic particles remain ie. total conversion. In fact beyond the matter energy conversion boundary, would any evidence of it be detectable as no energetic particles would radiate out from it, possibly even a null time reaction.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 1
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    9. Re:More info here by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but my understanding is that photons lose energy when passing through any space. It's a side effect of the red-shift caused by the overall expansion of the universe. As the universe expands it causes the wavelength of the photon to increase, which causes the energy of the photon to decrease.

    10. Re:More info here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friction, duh!

    11. Re:More info here by Kagura · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry for the language. What the fuck? That is impossible. It must be some sort of equipment error or methodological mistake. Please go look at the parent's picture, it must be some sort of joke news page for the issue, seriously. It's amazing.

      Here's a higher res image of exactly what I'm talking about. I can't find anything that indicates this is an artist rendition rather than an actual map, other than the fact that they used the word 'illustration' just once on the previous page. Please help me figure this out, because I know a hole like this cannot possibly be ...possible: Image of the Hole

    12. Re:More info here by SL+Baur · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, and perhaps dark matter is the phlogistan of the 21st century, but you'd make a better point if you didn't post anonymously, account or no.

      I've read plenty of material on the electric universe and it's no weirder than dark matter and dark energy. I would guess that we're due for a correction in astrophysics sometime. Whether the electric universe is it, I don't know, but the material that I've read has a certain feel to it that makes my skin crawl, similar to claims by Microsoft that Microsoft Windows is more secure than modern Unix.

      I became a computer programmer because I do have the ability to look over a body of code and pick out bugs on inspection, so I do tend to trust my intuition. (And before anyone flames me about XEmacs 20.0, my Dick Cheney told me specifically to not bother about testing the code that failed miserably personally because it had already been tested by others -- and I knew that was a mistake at the time, but went ahead anyway. Live and learn, and be assertive when you really are right.)

    13. Re:More info here by Kagura · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm replying to my own post. I went and analyzed their 'high-quality TIFF' and the medium quality image I posted above. First of all, let me say that it IS POSSIBLE that TIFFs are a very, very special file format that look differently before you start processing them for correct color control, etc. However, if that's not the case, then it appears that an artist saved either the med-quality JPG first or the high-quality TIFF first, because there are DEFINITE differences between the two pictures in the hole area. On one image, there are severe differences between the gray/black areas of the photos.

      I'm not going to proofread this, but it could be a total wack job post from me, as I'm on unfamiliar drugs right now (oxycodone aka Percocet) due to having gotten LASEK (not LASIK or PRK) eye surgery about 18 hours ago. Holy crap, holy crap. My vision without glasses is absolutely amazing. If you have the cash or live in a place with socialized health care (I'm US military, and they have a program to pay for the entire to be done), then you should DEFINITELY go for it. Unfortunately, there are no LONG, LONG term effects studies, but the original LASIK procedure has been out for 15 years, and LASEK and PRK have been out for nearly ten years. While there is no way of knowing the long-term implications for SURE until time has passed, but due to the nature of the surgery any ill long-term effects are likely to be non-existant, and since none of the world's serious practicing optometrist/opthamologists have a problem with this surgery, I am not very concerned. The entire procedure took less than 20 minutes sitting in the chair, and that's under 30sec laser time per eye. Anyway, I'm a little drowsy right now and have been having trouble writing this mess of words. Thanks for your time. :)

    14. Re:More info here by Griim · · Score: 2, Funny

      From the great people who brought you pictures of something

    15. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 3, Informative

      What most people on Slashdot do not realize is that the evidence for EU Theory spans multiple disciplines while simultaneously maintaining internal consistency across completely unrelated fields. It's going to take decades for people to realize and accept this. We are at the very beginning of a transition point.

      That said, the impending close-up's of Enceladus could really turn some heads. Enceladus has a cometary tail of sorts, which is enigmatic to NASA because the only mechanism they know of lifting that material up into the atmosphere is ice geysers resulting from tidal heating. The problem is that the tidal heating appears to only be restricted to the southern hemisphere. So, I believe that Cassini is capturing images right about now of this mysterious uplift of material. NASA will quite certainly find that the material is being uplifted along the Tiger Stripe rilles that criss-cross that planet, as a result of electrical machining. The explanation is here:

      http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0603 13moonjets.htm

      What's pretty silly, actually, is that if you watch NASA's video of Enceladus' jet, and focus on the shadow line during the animation, you will very clearly observe the jets remain stationary as the planetary features rotate ...

      http://www.nasa.gov/mov/139185main_PIA07762_full_m ovie.mov

      It should be very obvious if we're seeing more electrical plasma activity in our solar system because the arc points should be very hot point sources -- unlike any of NASA's preferred theories. My guess is that they will have to advocate the existence of wandering hot ice geysers! People are paying so little attention these days that, to be honest, I suspect they could get away with it.

      But what's also really silly about this whole thing is their response to the observation that Enceladus' poles are warmer than its equator. This is not all that unusual within EU Theory, and they've seen it before on other planets and moons where the plasmas are electrically active. There's a lot of strong evidence that something similar used to even be true for Earth -- explaining why we see things like croc bones and ancient coral reefs at nearly all latituides of the Earth for past ages of the Earth. After a while, one would think they would stop being surprised by these sorts of things.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    16. Re:More info here by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Hi, go take a look at both of the pictures in question, please. My current drugs only make me drowsy as a side effect of their pain relief. I was having trouble finishing typing, no different from being really, really tired without normal amounts of sleep recently. Take a chill pill dude, I think they gave me a few of those as well. :)

    17. Re:More info here by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm confused on one point. (This is not a flame). Why would photons going through a void lose energy?

      The energy of a photon is directly proportional to the frequency and inversely proportional to the wavelength.

      Photoelectric effect

      Shorter wavelengths of a photon (ultra-violet, X-rays, Gamma rays) have more energy than longer wavelengths (visible light, infra-red).

      Photons that we see from distant parts of the universe become affected by red-shift - anything moving away from us ends up with a longer wavelength that we would have seen if it were stationary. But this can also be caused by gravititional effects (time dialation causes by massive objects).

      If the object is moving towards us, then the photos become affects by blue shift.

      When a spiral galaxy is observed, the side moving towards the observer will have a slight blue shift, because the photon wavelength has been decreased.

      The photons in the void must be getting a longer wavelength somehow - perhaps the spacetime continuum is expanding more there than it is where there is ordinary matter.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:More info here by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Can't believe this isn't being tagged MuchAdoAboutNothing. I guess people just don't read the classics anymore. ;)

    19. Re:More info here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The entire final version of the article is here:
      http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0908

    20. Re:More info here by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      The energy of a photon is directly proportional to the frequency and inversely proportional to the wavelength. Duh, but OK.

      The photons in the void must be getting a longer wavelength somehow - perhaps the spacetime continuum is expanding more there than it is where there is ordinary matter. Why? That doesn't answer my question. Are the wavelengths really getting longer? Or just not getting as much shorter than they would have gotten going through a typical amount of dark matter? Inquiring minds want to know!

      I'm going to have to read that bloody PDF someone posted a link to.
    21. Re:More info here by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when God takes a day off to rest during creation.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    22. Re:More info here by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you forget to take the lens cap off.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    23. Re:More info here by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      It's simply that the CMB photons get a slight blue-shifty boost when interacting with matter.

      There's not much matter in the void, though, so photons that came through it look slightly cooler/more redshifted than ones that didn't (and had more opportunities to interact with matter along the way).

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    24. Re:More info here by robcraine · · Score: 1

      Dark energy (apparently.) Which is the stuff that's accelerating the expansion of the universe. There is less of it in regions where there's no matter (its a kinda anti-gravity thing) so the photons travelling through the void do not gain as much energy as the photons that travelled through matter infested space. That's how my head got round it, anyway. Although the site mentioned photons loosing rather than failing to gain energy.

    25. Re:More info here by highlander76 · · Score: 1

      With the other threads with goatse jokes I am now very leery of following any links to pictures of holes while I am at work!

    26. Re:More info here by huckamania · · Score: 1

      EU Theory? European Union? Expected Utility? Please provide the answer, I want to know all about this new and exciting theory.

      I did see a PU Theory. Perchance you were refering to such?

    27. Re:More info here by f1055man · · Score: 1

      I opened this story solely to find this comment. I knew Electric Universe would get a mention.

      The EU comments are always about as coherent as the LaRouche guy trying to sell papers on the corner. Is the EU theory some kind of cult for physics nerds or something? I find it bizarre that such an esoteric and ultimately inconsequential theory could create so much allegiance.

    28. Re:More info here by Zorbane · · Score: 1

      That's odd...I thought it sounded like a hole full of nothing...

    29. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      The EU comments are always about as coherent as the LaRouche guy trying to sell papers on the corner. Is the EU theory some kind of cult for physics nerds or something? I find it bizarre that such an esoteric and ultimately inconsequential theory could create so much allegiance.

      Ha! It is quite striking, huh? It's interesting to me that other people do not think anything of this.

      The issue is this: everybody assumes that EU Theory is bullshit. Except every once in a while, somebody decides to pick up a copy of "The Electric Sky" and read it. For the space enthusiast that has no vested interest in the mainstream astrophysical theories, there is a very high certainty that this person will be convinced by those arguments in that book, because to be perfectly honest, what those people say makes sense. The real problem is that the traditional views have become so ingrained in our heads and that NASA is such an excellent advocate for those theories that it's hard for most people to take the idea seriously enough to actually be motivated to pay for the book.

      If you believe that when the theory of everything is discovered that people will immediately jump out of their computer seats simultaneously and go running out into the streets, then you are in a fantasy land. The real theory of everything is not obvious -- or it would have already been discovered. In fact, if you believe that you've already figured out the theory of everything, more or less, already, then you will be disuaded from looking into possibilities that could bear fruit. In other words, your own confidence can undermine you and cause you to ask the wrong questions in the first place. In order to understand the theory of everything, you have to be willing to give up pre-existing cherished beliefs and open your mind to possibilities that you would have never otherwise suspected. I would argue that a great starting point is the idea that space plasmas are electrical. It's an extremely old debate and the arguments on the heretical side are far more impressive than most people realize. Don't be fooled by the lack of rigorous math. Not all evidence is mathematical, and that stuff *can* be generated over time. There is nothing about EU Theory, in other words, that cannot be made to work. It's merely a choice by mainstream astrophysicists to not try to make it work.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    30. Re:More info here by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      I looked up "Electric Universe" on google and found some very pretty, crackpot looking age ("The Electric Universe is a holistic answer to myopia* -that narrowing of vision which naturally accompanies the fragmentation of knowledge and learning"???), some books and a band. In fact all the pages seem to try to sell you on the book (except for the band's)

      Nothing in the couple of places I've looked...

      There isn't even a wikipedia page on this theory. I can't believe an "almost accepted" thoery has so little following in the sciences.

      Do you have a link to a web page that doesn't look like it's trying to sell you something? Something for scientists/engineers rather than lay people?

    31. Re:More info here by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Are these attepts at Slashdot book sales working out for you?

    32. Re:More info here by toriver · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you instead expected there to be something.

      It's a bit like if your house has been robbed and the police take a crime scene photograph of your livingroom without the TV. The essential element is precisely the missing TV - but you cannot see it.

    33. Re:More info here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the evidence for EU Theory spans multiple disciplines while simultaneously maintaining internal consistency across completely unrelated fields
      Pity then that it doesn't maintain consistency with documented facts.

      I've seen one argument (found it by Googling) that said, in essence, that the existence of dinosaurs the size of 747s is demonstrable proof that gravity was weaker 65+ million years ago (as predicted by the EU theory). Which is all well and good, until you realize that the largest flying "dinosaur" (actually a pterosaur, not a dinosaur at all, but most people make that mistake) was nowhere near that big. Pterosaurs had a maximum wingspan of about 12 meters, compared to the 747's 60 meter width. So, right there, you can scratch paleontology off the list of fields that EU is consistent with.

      Multi-disciplinary implies that the theory retains some connection with the facts in at least some of the disciplines it spans. Virtually everything I've read on this electric universe nonsense practically screams "crackpot", and I can only guess that the stuff that isn't obviously bullshit would also reek of crackpottery to me if I was proficient in the required fields.

      Perhaps it would be more truthful to say that "wild, inaccurate claims" about an electric universe span multiple disciplines, instead of using the word "evidence".
    34. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I am not one of the theorists, and I only offer my advocacy of their theories completely free of charge. To be honest, they don't have the time to deal with Slashdot, and many, if not most, believe that what I do is a complete waste of time.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    35. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to a web page that doesn't look like it's trying to sell you something? Something for scientists/engineers rather than lay people?

      You can find a list of references at Ian Tresman's Plasma Universe site (http://www.plasma-universe.com/). The wikipedia entry has been censored by ScienceApologist (Josh Schroeder), who believes that it is his right to prevent people from even learning what it states.

      I also highly recommend the upcoming IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science:

      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYea r=2007&isnumber=4287017

      There are some articles in there by EU Theorists ... namely Peratt, van der Sluijs, Thornhill, Don Scott and CJ Ransom. Yes, they *do* publish in peer review journals on occasion.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    36. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I've seen one argument (found it by Googling) that said, in essence, that the existence of dinosaurs the size of 747s is demonstrable proof that gravity was weaker 65+ million years ago (as predicted by the EU theory). Which is all well and good, until you realize that the largest flying "dinosaur" (actually a pterosaur, not a dinosaur at all, but most people make that mistake) was nowhere near that big. Pterosaurs had a maximum wingspan of about 12 meters, compared to the 747's 60 meter width. So, right there, you can scratch paleontology off the list of fields that EU is consistent with.

      Actually, Ted Holden's analysis does indeed merit consideration. You can view it here:

      http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropod s/biganims.html

      If you can explain why he is wrong in a technical sense, then you would actually be the first. But I recommend waiting. Dwardu Cardona is in the process of giving this subject a comprehensive treatment in his next book (to be released in April of 2008). It is apparently far more complex than can be briefly summarized, but it appears that he has reason to believe that *both* gravity and air density were different in the past. I recommend not under-estimating Dwardu. He's very talented and possesses an amazing wealth of knowledge.

      Although it actually proves nothing, it is worth mentioning that researchers currently believe that humans will experience no biological problems down to 1/3rd of the current Earth gravity. I'm not sure what they base this on, actually, but it is an unusual coincidence.

      Multi-disciplinary implies that the theory retains some connection with the facts in at least some of the disciplines it spans. Virtually everything I've read on this electric universe nonsense practically screams "crackpot", and I can only guess that the stuff that isn't obviously bullshit would also reek of crackpottery to me if I was proficient in the required fields.

      Perhaps it would be more truthful to say that "wild, inaccurate claims" about an electric universe span multiple disciplines, instead of using the word "evidence".

      Some people prefer to wait until lots of people believe something before they will jump on board. I suggest that this is in fact the primary force preventing the theory from widespread acceptance at the moment. The technical arguments in favor of electrical space plasmas are in fact quite strong, but you will not realize this until you read what the theory says yourself. Nobody can convince you of these theories. You have to be willing to give them a chance before you can possibly be convinced of anything that is not popular. It is important though that there are people out there that are working on problems like this as there does increasingly appear to be problems with the CMB, and there really is no need to have everybody thinking the same way about the same problem. That's generally not the right way to solve problems.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    37. Re:More info here by djw · · Score: 1

      It's quite obviously an artist's rendition. If you look closely at the TIFF, you can see repeating patterns in the "cosmos" and smudge-tool brushstrokes. No question.

    38. Re:More info here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment stumbled me onto some funny drama over in the Science section of Wikipedia. There's some admins out there determined to erase Electric Universe and other crackpot theories out of existence. It's great how rabid they get over something they say is so trivially dismissed as science, yet they have to go to obscure lengths to erase any details, ie. calling it all 'Original Research' when it's clearly not the authors of the various papers and books making a lame wiki page, or NPOV because it doesn't constantly discredit the theory. The fun starts here.

    39. Re:More info here by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Josh Shroeder, aka ScienceApologist, has supposedly agreed to a formalized debate on the www.thunderbolts.info forums, but I do not know when it is scheduled to begin. A less formal debate occurred a few weeks ago, and he delivered a less-than-stellar performance, IMHO. There's not much room in his world view, apparently, for the notion that textbooks can be wrong.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  4. Hmm by phagstrom · · Score: 1

    I sure hope it's still under warranty, 'cause I'll be damned if I chip in for a new one.

  5. Common problem by wombatmobile · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next time, remove the lens cap.

  6. And all of a sudden.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A million astrophysicists cried out in pain!
    -"Where are they John, where are they!?"
    *"They.... they are gone Bill, GONE!"

    1. Re:And all of a sudden.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Old question to the Christians that insist we are the only intelligent life in the universe: Do you really think God gave up after just one mistake?

      Newer question: Are you really sure we were the first mistake?

    2. Re:And all of a sudden.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used to hate people
      Now we just make fun of them
      It's more effective that way

    3. Re:And all of a sudden.... by jgarra23 · · Score: 1


      We used to hate people
      Now we just make fun of them
      It's more effective that way


      Sex! Drugs! Dogma! America!

    4. Re:And all of a sudden.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Durka derka dirka!

    5. Re:And all of a sudden.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Sex! Drugs! Dogma! America!

      "Sex, Drugs, God, Cash! Sex, Drugs, God! America!"

      (But let's keep on quoting her, because even when we quote her wrong, at least it means she said something worth saying.)

  7. a civilization by hof · · Score: 1

    ....that uses all the energy from their stars, colonizing the neighboring stars and galaxies, coming our way...

    1. Re:a civilization by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      I suddenly remembered a classic anime Gunbuster

    2. Re:a civilization by Platupous · · Score: 1

      I thought the exact same thing. . . but then I too have read "Learning The World". Lets hope we are still alive when the universe decides to pop with intelligent species. . . I sure could use a set of genetically added wings.

  8. Homer Simpson was right by Chlorus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your theory of a donut shaped universe intrigues me, Homer. I may have to steal it. That's the first thing I thought of when I read this.

  9. But how do they know? by gluechucker · · Score: 1

    I don't get how they would know something that huge... Wouldn't that mean observing it for a billion years? Could someone shed some light on that?

    1. Re:But how do they know? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. That's what makes it interesting, is that there's no way to shine a light on such a big area. ;-)

      I don't think they're saying it's necessarily like this now or that it will continue to be like this. What they're saying is that right now, as observed, this region of space shows these odd properties. That means that at the time the light and other radiation being observed around it would have passed by it or through it, that it was huge and as far as our scientists know very odd. I don't think any long-term study of it is required to find out that much.

    2. Re:But how do they know? by Bob+MacSlack · · Score: 1

      This is terribly off-topic, but I feel a need. Doesn't Einstein's theory of relativity assume that what you see is right now? If you see the light from two supernovas at the same time, then they happen at the same time?

      Apologies. Intoxicated and needing to prove I've read Einstein's theory.

    3. Re:But how do they know? by AlecC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not. It says that the only thing you can say is that you perceive them as happening right now, but you know they happened at different times in the past. A different observer would not certainly not perceive the same simultaneity - obviously, because they are in a differnt place so would have different speed-of-light delays. But if they worked back to when the supernovae "really" happened, they would not necessarily see the suparnovae being the same time-distance away, or with the same time-distance between them.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:But how do they know? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      1 billion years later...

      Someone turn off that damn light!!!

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  10. The Itching Question by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

    The scientists had just recently answered the bugging question "Is there a hole on Mars?" but now they too had answered a bigger question still.. "Is there a hole out there, in the expanse of the universe?"

    A great day to be alive....

    Well I guess the ones who used to live out there had something similar like our LHC...

    1. Re:The Itching Question by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I don't think everyone saying this is a "hole" is quite right. I think it might just be a large area that isn't filled with anything, not necessarily a "hole" that is more (or less) than just an unusually large empty space.

      Feel free to correct me, IANAA

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:The Itching Question by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1
      Actually, seeing as you brought it up, there ARE caves on Mars - some of these very large skylights, and the fact that THEMIS can't see the bottom says they're at least as deep as the opening is wide. I find these things absolutely fascinating, especially as we're unlikely to get even a robotic ground-truth from the sites during my lifetime :)

      Another piece: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070402_mm_ma rs_caves.html

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    3. Re:The Itching Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have yet to answer the seemingly simple but elusive question of whether there is a hole in uranus.

  11. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God's just preparing space for William Shatner's ego.

  12. A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and it was overlooked all this time. How's that for a security flaw?

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Be fair, They actually caught it before anything nasty came through.

      Of course, God is never going to apply the patch until after it's too late.

      This is, for reference, only about .005% of the observable universe though. Which is probably important somehow.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    2. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by loganrapp · · Score: 5, Funny
      Be fair, They actually caught it before anything nasty came through.


      Did they? We're here.

    3. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      I'll file a bug report right away!

    4. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Make it low priority, apparently it only affects 0.005% of the universe.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by David+Munch · · Score: 1

      In a more scary turn of events, scientists has named the new-found hole in the universe, "the Ballmer Anomoly".

    6. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roughly 6-10 billion light-years from Earth That's quite a remote hole.
    7. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by ADRenalyn · · Score: 1

      A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... ...and it was overlooked all this time. How's that for a security flaw?

      What do you expect? Didn't you know NASA is funded completely by Microsoft?

      *ducks*

    8. Re:A hole nearly a billion lightyears across... by XenoPhage · · Score: 1

      ...and it was overlooked all this time. How's that for a security flaw? But is it a security flaw? Or does someone need to figure out a way to exploit it first?

      Personally, I think God divided by zero during his big bang calculations and this is the result..
      --
      XenoPhage
      Technological Musings
  13. We don't know everything!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap, I thought mankind knew everything!

    1. Re:We don't know everything!? by lottameez · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was my thought. But astronomy just isn't the same as climatology. The evidence for Global Warming is overwhelming. With Global Warming we know everything already because it's based on.....oh, nevermind.

      What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations

      Flame On!

      --
      Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  14. nothing to see here by wardk · · Score: 1

    move along earthlings, you are not worthy of viewing this area

  15. So basically the big news... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 4, Funny

    is that in the middle of all of infinite space, they've now found space without anything in it? Let me know when they build something exciting there.

    1. Re:So basically the big news... by RuBLed · · Score: 4, Funny

      We know that missions spawn there in deadspace..

    2. Re:So basically the big news... by Trikenstein · · Score: 1

      Comming soon to a Space Viod near you: Wal-Mart

    3. Re:So basically the big news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new Void Wal-Mart owner: "Daaamn, I knew the franchise offer with this "no-competition-in-the-area" deal was too sweet to be true!"

    4. Re:So basically the big news... by BarfBits · · Score: 1

      The developers were planning a gated community, but the
      current credit crunch stopped all that.

    5. Re:So basically the big news... by scoopr · · Score: 1

      something exciting? Say, something like Las Vegas? :)

    6. Re:So basically the big news... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Any good loot?

      *hops into CNR*

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:So basically the big news... by Trikenstein · · Score: 1

      yeah, but, they have plenty of parking

  16. Holier than thou by dotslashdot · · Score: 1

    Universe to God: I'm holier than thou. I'm the one who pulls all the weight around here.

    1. Re:Holier than thou by rvw · · Score: 1

      Universe to God: I'm holier than thou. I'm the one who pulls all the weight around here. And maybe it's God pulling the plug. Who knows!
  17. The explanation is perfectly clear by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    It's the plug hole of course.

    --
    Deleted
  18. Hopefully, ... by nbharatvarma · · Score: 1

    ..this will help explain what is "outside" the universe.. to me, a hole can exist on an object . in this case, the universe has a hole.. does this mean there is something outside the universe ?

    --
    ... and I shall strike upon thee with great vegeance, furious anger and a slightly positive karma.
    1. Re:Hopefully, ... by m2943 · · Score: 2

      This isn't really a "hole", it's more of a void.

      Nevertheless, mathematically, it is possible to have holes in a body without anything being "outside" the body.

    2. Re:Hopefully, ... by Gabest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That must be the surface of the universe, it's just an inside-out shape, concave at every point!

    3. Re:Hopefully, ... by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 0

      It's a hole Jim, but not as we know it. This 'hole' exists/ed in the universe. Nothing on our world is comparable with it and language to try to deal with it ("a hole can exist on an object") fails here. The term 'hole' is a good way to describe what's seen but doesn't add to understanding it, in the PDF it's called a "cold spot".

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    4. Re:Hopefully, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you are high or just extremely stupid.

      This isnt a "hole" in the universe. It's a void. That is, it's an area in which we cannot see any stars or galaxies or anything else that emits radiation. Certainly it's odd, but its not like it represents some fundamental breakdown of what we understand as reality.

    5. Re:Hopefully, ... by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Think of a hole in cheese. A hole in cheese is a bubble on the inside, not a hole on a surface.

      In most places the universe is swarming with galaxies. This is a huge region with almost no galaxies.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  19. yeah by Almir · · Score: 4, Funny

    don't worry about it, god is patching that on tuesday.

    1. Re:yeah by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      Remember - the poor guy had to create everything in 6 days - offcourse he didn't do the universe equivalent of painting behind the radiators! No one looks there anyway!

    2. Re:yeah by tbyte_s_user_on_slas · · Score: 1

      Too much EVE-Online I guess ? :P

    3. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry about it, devil is patching that on tuesday.

      there, corrected that for you

    4. Re:yeah by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

      Thank you Johnathan Hoag

      --
      Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
    5. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George, is that you?

  20. Maybe by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    It's the center of the "Big Bang", if that's what happened. All the material would have been ejected away.

    ?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your understanding of cosmology is deeply flawed. You clearly know nothing about the metric expansion of spacetime, or else you would see the absurdity of declaring any particular spot in space to be "the center" of the Big Bang.

      This reminds me of studies of young children who were asked to model the Earth using clay and to place small plastic houses on their model anywhere where they thought people lived on the real Earth. At a certain age, the most common result is a ball of clay with a top that's either slightly or completely flattened, and houses placed only there. The Earth is round, as everyone knows, but people can't live in sideways or upside down houses, so most of the Earth's surface is uninhabitable. Obviously.

      The children believe in the verbal sentence "the world is round" with no idea what it actually means, so in their heads it just describes the shape of the dirt on the bottom of a flat Earth. In modern times, people hear that the universe is expanding, take it on trust because science has a great reputation, and they devise intuitively appealing fantasies in their minds where, somewhere out there in space, there exists a point that everything is moving away from. Fantasies where the Universe cannot be larger than a sphere 13.7 billion light years in diameter because everything came from the Big Bang, nothing can travel faster than light, and they heard once on PBS that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. The existence of galaxies outside of this limiting sphere would violate these obvious truths, and would be just as absurd as people living in sideways houses. I mean, jeeze, what would stop them from falling out of the windows?

    2. Re:Maybe by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I mean, jeeze, what would stop them from falling out of the windows?

      Would you rather they were pushed?

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Maybe by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Not if the universe is generally radially symmetric, but due to speed of light issues there's no way we can see that region in real time any way. If farther distance means the farther back in time you see, I'd expect that the center of the big bang would be seen as a giant sphere around us. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that thought, but I would also expect it to be undetectable. The three degree echo of the big bang comes from all around us. Anything beyond that ought then to be the same in any direction you look.

      I'd love to read a paper describing how one _would_ go about detecting where the big bang occurred. Anyone have references? Or is my speculation above considered correct?

    4. Re:Maybe by VagaStorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to be nagging, but maybe cosmology is not common as knowledge as you would like to think, references to easily readable information should always accommodate a post like that, or it will easily come of as slightly elitist and patronizing flamebait instead of something useful and informative. :p

    5. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? The easily readable information is precisely the problem. The idea that balls dropped in China travel in a direction opposite to balls dropped in America is hard for children to understand. It takes, like, work and stuff. You'd have to actually look at a globe and make the connection that the lines on the globe correspond to land masses on Earth. You have to play with magnets to get a feel for how something really big that behaves something like that could produce the seemingly elemental phenomenon of "down". But you don't need to do any of these things to convince yourself that you have a decent model of the world.

      Suppose you were to mention that some particular region of the world is uninhabitable because it's dry and it's hard to grow food, and there's a lot of effort being spent on figuring out how to go about growing food there. "That's impossible," someone says, "because that part of the world is sideways, and plants can only grow up. The whole effort is futile." This is not helpful. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Earth that isn't especially relevant to droughts or agriculture, the issues at hand. Likewise, theories that demonstrate ignorance of basic concepts like comoving distance or the metric expansion of spacetime (Pro-tip: Wikipedia these phrases!) aren't helpful explanations of why there's a giant hole in space. These are things that other ignorant people might read and say, "Yeah, that makes sense." These are anti-knowledge.

    6. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you could enlighten me, then.

      I'm curious why the original poster is wrong about the material being ejected. It certainly seems wrong to me, but I don't have the background to know why. My initial feeling is that matter is obviously not going to all go in the same direction and so, much like when you break balls at a pool table, things get spread out pretty evenly.

      Perhaps you might stop acting high and mighty and explain for us laymen what the flaws are.

    7. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Any paper on that subject would be rejected for publication. There is no specific location where the Big Bang occured, as at that time there were no distances and no distinguishable locations. You seem to be thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion of matter expanding outward into a pre-existing empty void. This is false. Imagine ants crawling on an expanding balloon saying "Gee, I wonder where on the surface of this balloon the Big Blow happened?" Your question is nonsensical in the same way. (Well, nearly the same way. Because if the ants discovered their balloon is embedded in 3d world, they could probably deduce where in 3d space the expansion started. We have no reason to suspect our spacetime manifold is embedded in any higher space, as the 2d manifold of a balloon is in our space.)

    8. Re:Maybe by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it's completely wrong.

      Every point in the universe today is where the Big Bang occurred. You can see it right now. Just look around you.

      Understand that space itself expanded from the starting point. All points of space in the universe today where infinitely closer together 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang did not expand outward into a mostly empty universe. The Big Bang occurred in a universe that was entirely full of extremely dense matter. As space expanded, the matter became less packed. You get the idea...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:Maybe by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Understand that space itself expanded from the starting point. All points of space in the universe today where infinitely closer together 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang did not expand outward into a mostly empty universe. The Big Bang occurred in a universe that was entirely full of extremely dense matter. As space expanded, the matter became less packed. You get the idea... Inflation. So inflation necessarily means that whereever you go, you're still at the starting point? I suppose it must. It's weird though seeing the past from everywhere around you, but that's a consequence of the speed of light and I've grokked time dilation to some extent. The starting point is both here and everywhere you can see, if you have sensitive enough instruments. That must be the case also. I haven't grokked that.

      I wanted to be a physicist until I got smashed with special relativity (and QM) in first year physics in college. Sigh.
    10. Re:Maybe by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Actually where ever you go there'll be. At the time of the big bang there was just no where to go ;).

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    11. Re:Maybe by RivieraKid · · Score: 1
      The thing is, despite what the name suggests, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, so matter is not being ejected from anywhere. What is happening is that the space-time that the matter is present in is expanding and therefore every piece of matter is moving away from every other piece of matter and there is no centre to this.

      Think of a balloon, you draw dots all over it and then inflate it - the dots all move away from each other with no dot being in the centre - the "space-time" or balloon is expanding so there is no centre that all the dots are being ejected from.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    12. Re:Maybe by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      The balloon idea can be misleading, because a balloon expands into a 3rd dimension. Whereas the big bang theory doesn't require another dimension.

    13. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderated: -1, Jerkweed

    14. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have no reason to suspect our spacetime manifold is embedded in any higher space, as the 2d manifold of a balloon is in our space.)

      Perhaps some of us have no reason to believe in a higher number of dimensions. Yet others think that string theories, with 6 or 11 dimensions (choose by personal taste, other flavors are also available), are worth considering. And of course every mathematician will believe in a universe of higher dimensions from time to time, since that is all a part of believing in six impossible things before breakfast.

      While I do not know exactly what group you are placing yourself in when you say "We", I can easily infer that this group excludes a whole bunch of people that say a lot of things that I personally think are interesting. So I do not want to be considered a member of your "We"; please exclude me from your group. I do not wish to be considered a member of any exclusive group that would include me.

      [Apologies to the great philosopher Groucho, who said that last bit much better than I have done]

    15. Re:Maybe by dintech · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a really interesting post and great metaphor. The idea of a 13.7 billion sphere is really what I would have imagined too and for the moment I'll take it on faith that it is not. Could someone take the time to explain what the reality actually is?

    16. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use the word "understand" as though the accepted "expanding space" theory has been backed up by verifiable evidence, or something.

    17. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that before the big-bang there was nothing. no matter, no energy...nothing

    18. Re:Maybe by cjdkoh · · Score: 1

      Imagine a bathtub filled with sand. Pull the plug out and record what you see. Now play that recording in reverse.

      Seriously though, I have no idea. Until moment ago I was blissfully ignorant of anything other than the concept of the 13.7 billion sphere.

    19. Re:Maybe by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Also:

      Wherever you go, there you are.

    20. Re:Maybe by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The universe or the big-bang would only have an observable center if you could look at the universe from the outside, and that's undefined. The big-bang wasn't an explosion of Things in space it was an explosion of space itself with thing in it so the center of the big-bang is the whole universe. Because this universe was once a super-dense, super-hot thingy once (instantly after the big-bang), cosmologists say that what's in the universe should be very even very uniform and predominately it is, but this void isn't and that's why it is very interesting.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fantasies where the Universe cannot be larger than a sphere 13.7 billion light years in diameter because everything came from the Big Bang, nothing can travel faster than light, and they heard once on PBS that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old

      Yeah, anyone with even a hint of geometry knows that the sphere can't be bigger than 13.7 billion light years in RADIUS, not DIAMETER! I can't believe what morons some people can be!

    22. Re:Maybe by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 1

      The Universe can not be a hypersphere. The reason for this is that space is Euclidean. If two parallel lines were to extend outwards, they will never intersect. Now, imagine a sphere with any two lines on it. Either the two lines will intersect at two points, or they coincide and intersect at an infinite number of points. It is impossible to have parallel lines on a 2-dimensional surface of a sphere. The same argument goes for a 3-dimensional boundary of a hypersphere. Two planes will necessarily intersect. If two lines on each plane were parallel, they two will intersect.
      One possible surface that is Euclidean on the surface is a torus. If two parallel lines were drawn on the surface, they will never intersect. A hypertorus will have a similar property.

    23. Re:Maybe by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Home is where you wear your hat.

    24. Re:Maybe by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      One more word out of you, John Bigbooty!!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    25. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one hell of a compression ratio. I'd suggest we use it for HDD storage but I don't think I have the time it takes to wait for the info to be retrieved from the archive.

  21. Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that... by BluBrick · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...said God, and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    1. Re:Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much love for adams.

  22. Not considered serious by jsiren · · Score: 4, Funny

    The hole is not considered serious, since it is not remotely exploitable. It will be fixed in Universe 1.1, which is to be released shortly.

    --
    Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    1. Re:Not considered serious by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know about that, 6 billion light years away seems pretty remote to me!

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    2. Re:Not considered serious by Calinous · · Score: 4, Funny

      So many millions years, and only a remote hole in the default install

    3. Re:Not considered serious by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Universe has already been patched and this hole closed. However, due to the distances involved, the local mirrors available to Earth will only be updated to include the Universe-CURRENT version in around 6 to 10 billion years.

    4. Re:Not considered serious by fireylord · · Score: 0

      one would hope that it would be backported into -STABLE too though.

    5. Re:Not considered serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is scheduled for release on 2012

    6. Re:Not considered serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that, 6 billion light years away seems pretty remote to me! And look! Are you exploiting it? I thought not.
    7. Re:Not considered serious by g-san · · Score: 1

      You are still using the mirrors? It only takes 3 billion years to get the torrent seeded properly.

    8. Re:Not considered serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take that, Theo!

  23. Viral by Knutsi · · Score: 1
    Could it possibly be that someone unleashed an exponentially growing pack of machinery that does nothing but turns the matter it find into more copies of itself...? Should give you a pretty nice bubble filled with nothing.

    Given enough time, it's not totally unlikely this is bound to happen, also by human hands.

    1. Re:Viral by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Could it possibly be that someone unleashed an exponentially growing pack of machinery that does nothing but turns the matter it find into more copies of itself...? Machinery? That's what life does!
    2. Re:Viral by Magada · · Score: 1

      Hence a theory that says we're part of a galaxy-colonization process started by some other race in the distant past - a little variation on the panspermia theory, if you will. How do you like the thought of being someone else's planetforming machine?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    3. Re:Viral by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      I call this idea "Galactic Grey Goo", or GGG.

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    4. Re:Viral by Cruise_WD · · Score: 1

      If we're planetforming for another race I hope they like particulate-filled skies, sewage-flavoured water and barren ground...hey, that must mean all the "save the environment" stuff is making our job harder! Cut it out and start polluting, I want my paycheck when this gig is finished...

      --
      [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
    5. Re:Viral by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'd get a bubble filled with nothing from that. I think that it would be filled with machines.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    6. Re:Viral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the machinery convert matter to energy as well to power themselves. Eventually they would have to start cannibalizing old/broken units to make energy after they had used up all other local matter for replication and energy production.

      Check the edges of that hole astronomers. Is it growing?

    7. Re:Viral by Goobermunch · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see it now: An alien race needs styrofoam to truly thrive. Billions of years ago, they send out little bits of organic materials precoded to end up with styrofoam. Time passes. Dinosaurs evolve and die (not due to any meteor strike, but because their DNA has an innate kill switch). Mankind evolves and learns to extract the decayed leftovers of the dinosaurs from the Earth's crust. We develop the technology to make styrofoam.

      Now that we've fulfilled our evolutionary purpose, it's our time to go away like the dinosaurs.

      Of course, the aliens who created us, they're thinking . . . "okay, these things we've created . . . they can be killed by viruses right? Okay, and they like sex a whole lot, right? So what we need is a deadly virus that is passed by sex."

      Is it any surprise that the AIDS epidemic really took off about the same time McDonald's stopped using Styrofoam? I think not!

      --AC

    8. Re:Viral by toddmori · · Score: 1

      I can see it now: An alien race needs styrofoam to truly thrive. Billions of years ago, they send out little bits of organic materials precoded to end up with styrofoam. Time passes. Dinosaurs evolve and die (not due to any meteor strike, but because their DNA has an innate kill switch). Mankind evolves and learns to extract the decayed leftovers of the dinosaurs from the Earth's crust. We develop the technology to make styrofoam. Now that we've fulfilled our evolutionary purpose, it's our time to go away like the dinosaurs. Of course, the aliens who created us, they're thinking . . . "okay, these things we've created . . . they can be killed by viruses right? Okay, and they like sex a whole lot, right? So what we need is a deadly virus that is passed by sex." Is it any surprise that the AIDS epidemic really took off about the same time McDonald's stopped using Styrofoam? I think not!
      If you are going to quote George Carlin, you should give him some sort of attribution...
    9. Re:Viral by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, and I intended to do so. However, I was banging this out before I left for work and was a little rushed.

      --AC

    10. Re:Viral by Knutsi · · Score: 1

      It would be filled with something that does not shine, nor reflect light (: if you consume all the matter and energy (also inbound), I'd bet it would look at bit like that.

  24. A hole in the universe? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1, Funny

    I blame George Bush.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:A hole in the universe? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      He's a big enough ahole indeed.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  25. A billion light years... by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

    How many Albert Halls is that?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:A billion light years... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 3, Informative
      Approximately 8.46805334003712 x 10^69, assuming a volume of 3.5 million cubic feet for the Albert Hall (source (pdf)).

      Close enough?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:A billion light years... by ilikejam · · Score: 1

      Who's Albert Hall?

      --
      C-x C-s C-x k
    3. Re:A billion light years... by theskunkmonkey · · Score: 1

      I thought Albert Hall was full of holes? - P.McCartney, J.Lennon

    4. Re:A billion light years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +3 Informative... only on slashdot,

      I love you guys....

    5. Re:A billion light years... by toriver · · Score: 1

      That's one ROYAL Albert Hall!

  26. its the center of the big bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats an easy one... if the universe was created from a big bang, then naturally the center or point where that explosion took place would be void as all matter is expanding away from it. hence this big hole is where the universe was created.

    1. Re:its the center of the big bang by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...if the universe was created from a big bang, then naturally the center or point where that explosion took place...

      HA! Beat you that time.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:its the center of the big bang by ElderKorean · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The unfortunate flaw in your comment, is that with a universe that started from a simple point (like ours) then all locations in the universe are at the centre, no matter how far things have spread out.

      Reminds me of a Babylon 5 quote.
      'There is a hole in your mind'

    3. Re:its the center of the big bang by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, and if that gives one a big "huh!" look, the idea is that space expands by increasing the distance between matter, "stretching" spacetime itself, and doesn't expand inside something. There is no "something" on the outside, not even vacuum, because vacuum is a lack of matter, not a lack of spacetime. So it's a bit like a surface of a balloon expanding if you blow it up (= big bang), and wherever you go on that surface, you are always at the "center" from your point of view.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:its the center of the big bang by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Oh and as for going "inwards" to the center of that balloon and thinking "but there's the center!", that wouldn't really work, and would probably metaphorically be a bit like going back in the time part of the spacetime construct that is the balloon surface.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    5. Re:its the center of the big bang by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      The unfortunate flaw in your comment, is that with a universe that started from a simple point (like ours) then all locations in the universe are at the centre, no matter how far things have spread out.

      Screwy to understand, but it's true. However, I never quite liked the 'dots on a balloon' description, because that's what gives people the idea that the Universe should have a big central void. Neither did I like the 'plum pudding' description, because the pudding has a surface beyond which there is no pudding.

      I like to use the analogy of Clockland: it's basically the balloon analogy with one fewer dimension, but makes it more explicit that the central void isn't actually part of the space of the Universe.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:its the center of the big bang by eggoeater · · Score: 2, Informative

      For an excellent discussion on the topic of space-time, pick up Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos.
      Great read for the technically adept layman on what space-time is and how it "works".


    7. Re:its the center of the big bang by khallow · · Score: 1

      Several flaws with your argument. First, we don't know if the universe is infinite in extent or not. If it is bounded and doesn't loop in on itself in the large scale, then you can determine a center. Also, there may be some far larger scale than current in which a center can be determined due to a concentration of matter. Finally we don't know that the universe expanded from a central point. We do know that the visible universe must have at one point been very close together, but that says nothing about the rest of the universe.

    8. Re:its the center of the big bang by trifish · · Score: 1

      all locations in the universe are at the centre

      I see that old bullshit repeated over and over. If the matter in space is finite, and AFAIK it is believed by scientists to be finite, then it has to have some overall shape. Therefore, there must be a center of the matter.

      BTW, don't confuse matter in space with space.

    9. Re:its the center of the big bang by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      It could be finite, but unbounded. Think of the surface of a sphere with 2D beings living on it. If they walk far enough, they'll eventually end up back where they started. There's no center point of the surface. There is a center of the sphere, but it doesn't exist in the same dimension as the residents of the surface.

      I personally think that the universe is shaped like a giant doughnut. Mmmmmmm, cosmilicious.

    10. Re:its the center of the big bang by trifish · · Score: 1

      It could be finite, but unbounded. Think of the surface of a sphere with 2D beings living on it.

      Space like that (a la the PacMan game) would violate quite a lot of laws in physics. Two objects going in opposite directions (i.e. not on a collision course) would eventually collide. That clearly doesn't seem to be the case in this space, does it?

    11. Re:its the center of the big bang by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Two objects going in opposite directions (i.e. not on a collision course) would eventually collide. That clearly doesn't seem to be the case in this space, does it? Space is so vast that even if this has happened we may just have not noticed it. Though given the best guess of the size (minimum 78 billion light years) and age (13.7 billion years) of the universe, even taking spatial expansion into account, something traveling at the speed of light couldn't have made it all the way "around" even once.

      This suggests that the universe could be expanding at or faster than the speed of light. It would be physically impossible for anything to have made it all the way around and back again. This has been suggested as a way to explain why everything seems to be redshifted and even accelerating (the bigger space is, the more relative distance seems to grow as it expands). This theory also opens up the idea that there may be parts of the universe we can't ever travel to, or even see through conventional means.
    12. Re:its the center of the big bang by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Yes, and as the wiki page on inflationary cosmology points out, the idea that "everything is the center of the universe on the surface of a balloon" is still highly theoretical. Pardon the pun, but there are plenty of holes in the explanation so far. It seems to me that Einstein discovered relativity and it worked really well, but the questions Einstein's work raised and the observational data collected after the fact has puzzled man ever since.

      No one has put together a decent explanation. There is no simple "aha!" or equation like E=MC^2 to string theory. All I've ever seen from it are half solved equations and a collection of bad analogies. We're still finding plenty of things, like giant holes in the universe, that were neither predicted nor make any sense at all. That's sorta the whole point of the article, no? Lots of interesting data without any cohesive explanation.

      Who's to say AC is wrong about his "center of the big bang" theory? No stars, no gas, not even any "dark matter" which in and of itself is just another "giant hole" in inflationary cosmology. "No one knows where it went, but it must be there! Well... everywhere except that giant gaping hole over there." GP waving off AC's explanation dismissively when GP doesn't have a real explanation himself... that sound's to me like a Christian claiming, "We know God did it, we just don't know how. Since he's God though... that's understandable."

    13. Re:its the center of the big bang by oneiron · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate flaw in your comment is that the source of the big bang is still debated. Was it a single point? Was it the collision of 2 'branes'? Maybe I'm reading into your comment too much, but it seems like you're saying "(like ours)" as though this is some sort of verifiable fact. In actually, it's no longer even the most favored theory among astrophysicists.

    14. Re:its the center of the big bang by trifish · · Score: 1

      something traveling at the speed of light couldn't have made it all the way "around" even once.

      Sounds like an easy way to prevent anyone from disproving the "hypothesis".

    15. Re:its the center of the big bang by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an easy way to prevent anyone from disproving the "hypothesis". I think that's why it's a theory and not a proven fact. What we actually know about the nature of the universe is still very little in the grand scheme of things.

      I was mistaken in my previous post. The recent guess at universe size (78 billion ly diameter) is actually less than the Hubble Limit (46.5 billion ly radius), which is the maximum observable universe given the speed of light and rate of expansion of the universe. The calculation itself has something to do with the observed red-shift of the farthest galaxies that we can see, but the math is way over my head.
    16. Re:its the center of the big bang by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that physics requires the universe to have a Euclidean geometry, which isn't the case anymore. Given that, whether we could tell the difference between an topologically open and a topologically closed universe by observing things "meeting" from opposite directions depends on how large the space in question was, and if it is expanding. If it's expanding faster than something could make it from one side to the other in the age of the universe, we couldn't. And that may be the case with our observable universe...

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    17. Re:its the center of the big bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there is nothing on the outside, not even space, what happens when we reach the edge?

      Do we just continue stretching spacetime with us, like a bug trying to push out of a balloon?

    18. Re:its the center of the big bang by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Good grief your right, I looked to the left and the right and found I was in the exact center of the Hubble Volume!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:its the center of the big bang by trifish · · Score: 1

      Good grief your right, I looked to the left and the right and found I was in the exact center of the Hubble Volume [wikipedia.org]!

      What a misleading comment and link. The Wikipedia article redirects to "Observable universe". I've never talked about "Observable universe", but about the entire matter that exists in this sapce. And that (not "Observable universe") is currently believed to be finite (space in which the matter exists may be infinite though).

      "Observable universe" is obviously finite and only an idiot would comment on that fact.

    20. Re:its the center of the big bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the "bug" is only on the surface of the balloon; he can go around and around, like a sailor circumnavigating the earth, but the "bug" will never reach the edge, because there is no edge.

    21. Re:its the center of the big bang by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I understand both the rubber band/tube and balloon surface analogies, but neither of those seem complete. It doesn't that there's "nothing" outside of these two items, at least in my (limited) mind, rather that simply makes things easier. Let's take the rubber band analogy first:

      While it's true that you will appear to be in the center of an expanding band, insomuch as your neighbors are moving away from you, it's the ends that are important. Assuming a homogeneous distribution of points, if you measure that the farthest visible point in one direction is 3 inches away, and the farthest in the other is 5 inches, you can infer that you are 1 inch away from the center. This is true for any finite line. It may expand further, changing your distance from the center, but if both ends are moving at the same rate, the center won't change.

      The balloon analogy is even more lacking, because all items are presumed to be on the surface. There can be no "center" of the surface of a sphere. Nonetheless, you could still find the center of the balloon itself: assuming a homogeneous distribution of neighbors, you simply find the one that's farthest away, and that's the opposite side. Half that, and you have the middle of the balloon.

      You can revise your estimates if you find farther neighbors, but it should still give you a good approximation. The universe is assumed to be finite, so as long as the universe is not expanding faster than the speed of light (which should be an impossibility), we should be able to spot our farthest neighbors.

      What am I missing? Yes the universe is very large; it may be difficult to see the objects that are farthest away, but it should be possible unless they're obscured by other objects in front of them.

  27. I know it's a /. tradition ... by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

    "Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size,"

    ... but I wish the goatse* jokes would finally stop.

    1. Re:I know it's a /. tradition ... by buswolley · · Score: 1

      I concur. Let it die.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    2. Re:I know it's a /. tradition ... by zeromorph · · Score: 1

      I always (at least every Monday morning) had the feeling that god is just trolling, but now there is a proof.

      I think there is a theory that he is trying to quit smoking.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
  28. It could be because of the... by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    It could be because of the Planet Eater

    1. Re:It could be because of the... by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's where the ancient evils such as Cthulhu and his ilk hang out.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  29. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They wanted to call it Uranus, but that name was given

    1. Re:Obligatory by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      If it's any consolation, the hole is in the constellation Eridanus.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  30. It turns out by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    There really is a Doomsday Machine

    --
    What?
    1. Re:It turns out by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Hey, the Doomsday Machine on that page looks like shark.

  31. Normal by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature?

    Declaring something is not normal because it doesn't agree with our imperfect idea about how things work seems to be the wrong way about it to me.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Normal by Baumi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature?

      Declaring something is not normal because it doesn't agree with our imperfect idea about how things work seems to be the wrong way about it to me. The full quote is: "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe."

      That doesn't mean it's not normal per se. It means that this void is caused by some factor not previously observed or taken into account in simulations, i.e. "If these simulations were 100% correct, something like this couldn't occur."

      (Let the speculations commence...)
    2. Re:Normal by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``It means that this void is caused by some factor not previously observed or taken into account in simulations, i.e. "If these simulations were 100% correct, something like this couldn't occur."''

      Yes, exactly. And the conclusion that follows from that is that your model is not correct, not that what you observe is not normal.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Normal by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature? Because it doesn't commonly occur in nature? I think they're using "not normal" in the sense of "rare".
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Normal by k8to · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, you are railing against the phrasing. The fact is the scientist did not mean what you think she meant. The phrasing validly can be seen to mean (in context) what you think it should say. In short, you are nitpicking the phrasing while believing you are complaining about the content.

      -1 Boring.

      --
      -josh
    5. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I think you guys are missing the point. The void correlates with a cold spot within the CMB. The CMB is not supposed to have artifacts. It's supposed to be unrelated to the items between us and it. When you find a relation, that would tend to suggest that the CMB may have a more local source -- which actually threatens the primary proof for the Big Bang in the first place.

      If I may, can I suggest that you guys are not being skeptical about what you're reading? I don't mean to be critical here, but a local source for the CMB would confirm what the Electric Universe Theorists have been telling people for some time now: that the CMB is an electric fog that is generated locally.

      I highly recommend that you pay attention to the logic being used at the end of the article:

      Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.

      At some point in time within the development of the Big Bang Theory, it became normal to say that light can be absorbed more by nothingness than by matter. In another article here (http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast22fe b99_1.htm), they explain this theory, called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect:

      The Universe is filled with conglomerations of galaxies called clusters that are millions of light years across, consisting of hundreds or thousands of galaxies held together by gravity. Mostly clusters have atmospheres of very hot gas that we can see because of the X-rays they emit. Sunyaev and Zeldovich realized that something interesting happens when a CMBR photon passes through such a cluster. There is a good chance that it will collide with one of the electrons in the hot atmosphere. In the process, some photons would gain energy while others would lose energy. At microwave radio frequencies, they predicted, the intensity of the CMBR would appear to be depleted in the direction of the cluster because the photons would be "scattered" to other frequencies outside the microwave frequency band. This process is called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect.

      [...]

      Typically, the deficit in the CMBR is only 0.05% of the cosmic microwave background intensity. Detecting these small perturbations requires lots of observing time and painstaking data reduction.

      So, the SZ effect allows them to explain away the fact that some galaxies are not casting shadows against the CMB. If there isn't a shadow for some of them, then perhaps that's because the photons are being energized by the obstruction. One is left wondering if the nothingness in the void is absorbing the quantity of light that they were predicting that nothingness should even absorb?

      But, let me ask you guys this: Isn't it just possible that the cold spot *is* related to the void, and that the Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws?
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re:Normal by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      (Let the speculations commence...) Make it so, #1.

      I already posted my first thought on this. My second thought is that this is more of press release sort of material than the science and mathematics behind it.

      Spare me no detail, but let's continue.

      The full quote is: "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe." I'm not sure I would trust either statement.

      The article carefully points out that this is the first time we have ever had instruments capable of detecting this void. Better data and more sensitive instruments will definitely shed more light on the situation.[1] Before we better understood the Hubble shift, it was accepted that our galaxy was the largest galaxy of the universe. As instruments got better, that was seen not to be the case.

      I do not trust computer simulations to predict anything Outside The Box. I've worked too long in the industry. Sadly, Garbage In, Garbage Out is a phrase I don't see much of recently. There was absolutely no concept of dark matter when I first got interested in astrophysics. I'd be happy to read mispredictions of computer models written around that time, but I don't think they exist. Because ...

      [1] Follow the money. Science researchers are like politicians in that they are always pursuing the renewal of their grants as a politician pursues reelection. (Been there and done that more than once.) I'm on their side. If the United States had been spending the same amount of money to do scientific research and space exploration instead of killing Iraqi women and children (and millions of others since the 1970's), the world would be a better and safer (and far, far richer) place.
    7. Re:Normal by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of a mutation?

      A sheep with six legs is "not normal" yet it has been documented to occur in nature.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Normal by Baumi · · Score: 1

      ``It means that this void is caused by some factor not previously observed or taken into account in simulations, i.e. "If these simulations were 100% correct, something like this couldn't occur."''

      Yes, exactly. And the conclusion that follows from that is that your model is not correct, not that what you observe is not normal. Exactly - which shows that the quote you pulled out of its context ("it is not normal") says exactly the opposite of what you claim it says when read in context ("it is not normal, based on observational studies or simulations").

      BTW: Do you really believe that scientist is trying to say "That's simply not normal, so we should ignore it and plow on"?

      There is a difference between "normal" and "natural". Norms are subject to change, so you may observe "not normal" pehnomenons in nature, i.e. events that should have played out differently according to established theories. These are obvously signs that the theories are flawed or incomplete.
    9. Re:Normal by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that is exactly what they mean. Unlike the religious world, scientists don't blindly hold onto their models of the universe when evidence comes along to the contrary. They try to come up with new models which fit with this evidence.

      So when they say that is not normal, they mean it is not normal within the confines of the theories we have about the Universe, so either there is an observational error, or we need to come up with some new theories. They are not saying this is not normal, and therefore we are going to forget all about it, and try to pretend it doesn't exist.

    10. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just shut up, flame bait. there really is no call for that. you can't put anything informative or insightful in the conversation so you resort to religion bashing just to hear your own mouth? move along. we don't need that kind of trash around here.

    11. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the religious world, scientists don't blindly hold onto their models of the universe when evidence comes along to the contrary. They try to come up with new models which fit with this evidence.
      So, basically, scientists put $20 down and start turning shells over one by one?
    12. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws" You don't have to be a phd to figure that out. I find the Big Bang cute and all but it strikes me as crap.

    13. Re:Normal by m50d · · Score: 1
      Does the electric universe theory explain the remarkable fit on that iconic graph of the CMB? More importantly, did it do so _before_ the results were found?

      I'm always open to new ideas, but tere's a long way to go to disprove the big bang.

      --
      I am trolling
    14. Re:Normal by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, if you ever come up with something that explains what we see better, then feel free to mention it.

    15. Re:Normal by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

      just shut up, flame bait. there really is no call for that. you can't put anything informative or insightful in the conversation so you resort to religion bashing just to hear your own mouth? move along. we don't need that kind of trash around here.
      You really must be new here.
      --
      Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
    16. Re:Normal by khallow · · Score: 1

      But, let me ask you guys this: Isn't it just possible that the cold spot *is* related to the void, and that the Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws?

      For the theory to be in its "death throes", one needs substantial deviation from observation. I would expect features on the order of a billion light years across to correlate with the cosmic microwave background (CMB). I'm familiar with the Electric Universe theory, and frankly the Big Bang theory continues to explain the universe better. For example, the Big Bang theory doesn't require a strange, unobserved "locally generated" "electric fog". For example, we don't see significant absorption of light over billions of light years, we observe virtually everything moves away from us, crudely proportional to the red shift of the object and its distance from us. And we observe the CMB with its near homogenous, blackbody spectrum.
    17. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah.

      Something that is not normal is merely something that is an outlier, or more than a couple of standard deviations from the norm.

      This empty region qualifies: it is clearly an outlier of the left tail. Which should not be confused with a tale by an out'n'out liar of the lefthand path.

      People should really pay attention to technical terminology when reading the high faluting stuff of slashdot fare.

    18. Re:Normal by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "You don't have to be a phd to figure that out"

      Not being properly educated is a sure way to thing something you don't quite understand is crap.

      Big Bang is still a very good theory, but it's a theory. People will adjust it to match the observed facts and, when it becomes increasingly hard to adjust it, people will prefer other better theories that may fit the facts with less tweaking.

      And no. "God and angels" is by no means a decent explanation.

    19. Re:Normal by pragma_x · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Thank you for this delightfully sane post. Please write more often; slashdot needs this.

      But, let me ask you guys this: sn't it just possible that the cold spot *is* related to the void ...


      I'd go as far as to say that they're right, and that the void *is* a positive indication that there is a big (mostly and unusually) empty spot out there.

      While I'm not as deeply read as yourself in these matters (as your post strongly suggests), I've always been skeptical about the Big Bang as proposed, largely because matter in the universe is... well... lumpy. The obviousness of the world we live in, clinging to this sizable chunk of baryonic matter we call Earth, just seems to tell me that the true origin of things isn't going to be that simple, nor elegant.

      Moreover, I find myself leaning more toward the concept of "mutliple, not so big bangs" being responsible for the observable universe.

      So when I first read about this, I wasn't really suprised at all, since everything else is clustered in the Universe, from atoms all the way up to strings of galaxies. I think this lends weight to the argument that the CMB is radiation that originates from the excitation of matter as something close to what we observe now, which would explain it's "lumpyness" as well as the correlation cited in the article. Less matter nearby, less CMB.

      "... and that the Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws?"


      I think we're going to be stuck with it for a long time, in one way or another.

      If the current understanding of quantum mechanics is any indication of what to expect, the machinery of the universe may very well continue to be a mysterious thing, no matter how deep we dig. Or, it there could be a very "elegant" unified theory that exists, but only so within a number of dimensions well beyond any one person's comprehension. Either way, I think we're going to be stuck with progressively better, yet partially incomplete theories for the foreseeable future. So the "Big Bang" is going to endure since it's mostly right, plus it's easy to get your head around, even if it's going to be constantly proven as inaccurate.

      It's going to take a long time, and something much, much better to supplant it before it'll completely go away as a good theory, or even as a teaching tool. Chemistry class still references the Bohr model, to help illustrate the relationship between electrons and the atomic nucleus; it's not 100% accurate anymore, but we still use it. On the other hand, I don't think "the four humors" comes up in biology class as anything more than a footnote.
    20. Re:Normal by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't understand most of this, but one thing in particular occurs to me-- do we know it's really a "hole"? I mean, if we're measuring certain sorts of radiation to tell us what's out there, far away as it is, do we know that there's actually nothing there? Or could there be something there that is absorbing that radiation? Or something in between that's interfering with the radiation getting to us?

    21. Re:Normal by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature?

      "Normal" meaning "of the norm", or the most common case.

      The common case is for those holes not to exist, hence the hole is not normal.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:Normal by chrisb33 · · Score: 1

      Completely agree. As explained succinctly by xkcd (Science: It works, bitches!) the Big Bang theorists did an incredible job predicting the spectrum of the CMB before it was even shown to exist. Slightly offtopic: There's a great story about the accidental discovery of the CMB by engineers just 40 miles from where it was being predicted.

    23. Re:Normal by nmos · · Score: 1

      For example, the Big Bang theory doesn't require a strange, unobserved "locally generated" "electric fog".

      No but it does require a strange, unobserved "dark energy". Ever since they discovered that the speed of the expansion of the universe has been increasing the Big Bang theory has been in trouble. Unfortunately we don't have anything better so we keep it on life support.

    24. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Thomas Kuhn when you need him?

    25. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'strange, unobserved "locally generated" "electric fog"'

      Oh, the CMB you mean? Yes, quite strange and unobserved.

    26. Re:Normal by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, given the expansion apparently exists, we have indirect observation. But yes, we don't know what causes it.

    27. Re:Normal by khallow · · Score: 1

      No. The CMB is not local. Hence, it is not "locally generated".

    28. Re:Normal by Mr.Fork · · Score: 1

      But, let me ask you guys this: Isn't it just possible that the cold spot *is* related to the void, and that the Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws?

      Depends. Which side of the universe theory do you stand on? Is the universe expanding at an accelerating logarithmic rate and what we're seeing is the result of it? Either case, this unexplainable void is another of many questions astronomers continually grapple with now on a daily basis. As new technologies allow us to see further into older space, we're always coming across sheit in the sky we can explain. I'm sure this new object will/could be explained in a while, but perhaps its something we'll never be able to fully understand.

      Besides, even if the BB is in it's death throws, how much time does that leave us? A few billion years to sort it out? :)

      --
      Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
    29. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature?

      Does this answer your question?

      -mcgrew

      (BTW, I'm not that normal myself.

      "SLOW DOWN, COWBOY! It's been 48 hours since your last submitted article was posted on the front page! And 42 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment. Stop typing so damned fast, mcgrew!"

    30. Re:Normal by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It must be electric universe telethon week. Second one I've seen today and both modded up to 5.

    31. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1
      You know, there are a lot more things out there than just the CMB. We have a whole solar system wrapped around us that is filled with observations that are enigmatic to mainstream theories.

      But, I think the bigger picture of what's happening right now is that what we mathematically predicted was a perfect CMB is turning out to have "defects". It was only this past April that NewScientist ran the somewhat heretical article regarding the "axis of evil". (maybe evil for Big Bangers) ...

      From http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.0 00-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html:

      Some believe it is just a figment of overactive imaginations. But evidence is growing that the so-called "axis of evil" - a pattern apparently imprinted on the radiation left behind by the big bang - may be real, posing a threat to standard cosmology.

      According to the standard model, the universe is isotropic, or much the same everywhere. However, in 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College London noticed a curious pattern in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created by NASA's WMAP satellite. It seemed to show that some hot and cold spots in the CMB are not distributed randomly, as expected, but are aligned along what Magueijo dubbed the axis of evil.

      This inspired the creation of the GalaxyZoo Project. But as I've noted in the past here and elsewhere, you guys can somewhat be forgiven for not noticing because the story run about Galaxy Zoo on Space.com did not mention anything about the CMB whatsoever -- as if there was no threat.

      It's also worth noting, just for the record, that static universe theories were far more accurate in predicting the CMB's actual K value, and yet the textbooks kind of forget to mention this fact, as if it was too inconvenient to be true.

      One would have to expect that there would be some resistance to calling the last 100 years or so a giant waste of time by people who spent at least 10% of their lives studying it. But, it's the right time for people to stop adopting a pseudo-skeptical stance within astrophysics, and start applying skepticism to the mainstream models too. If the CMB has come under increasing threat, then we need to take an objective look at it, and start to consider cosmological alternatives. It's what a rational person would do, at least. And a very, very good starting point for everybody would be to start by reading what the heretics are saying. Heretics are useful because they force us to play devil's advocate. The biggest heretics around these parts at least are the Electric Universe Theorists. I've been reading their materials as a layperson for a full year now, and there is nothing wrong with their theories. They currently lack the rigorous application of electrodynamics and plasma physics mathematics, but this is to be expected for a young theory. I believe that Kuhn commented on the difficulty of comparing competing theories: it's hard because you will be presented with evidence of different types, and some of these types of evidence may not be the kinds that you prefer. But, you still must accept whatever evidence you have and get on with it. And what a lot of mainstream'ers would prefer that we not realize is that people could quite easily create this missing mathematics. The funny thing is that few people have really tried. Some entrepreneurial young astrophysicist who is following the news, and who is familiar with the math of electrodynamics and plasmas, will one day realize this and make himself famous by filling the void of mathematics for EU Theory. And don't be alarmed if it all happens quite overnight because much of the material from the time of Alfven is still quite relevant if the Big Bang is not the ultimate answer. The EU Theorists have done quite an excellent job of thinkin

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    32. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Well, if you ever come up with something that explains what we see better, then feel free to mention it.

      The assertion that mainstream astrophysicists are mis-modeling space plasmas as fluids rather than electrical phenomenon is supported by observations of morphologies in space that correspond with electrical plasmas that we know from laboratory experience; by the very words of the man who invented the math for modeling plasmas, Hannes Alfven; by simulations of spiral galaxies by Anthony Peratt that appear to suggest that electrical plasmas can generate spiral galaxies *without* any dark matter whatsoever; by rilles (canyons) on the nearby rocky planets and moons that oftentimes track or move through the terrain without regard for gravity (the Grand Canyon does just this, in fact); by Wallace Thornhill's accurate prediction of all of the results of the Deep Impact Mission using EU Theory; by a very large volume of testimony that is recorded within ancient astronomical records and historical accounts of the past; by the fossil record, which indicates that the Earth once possessed a uniform temperature over the entire planet, as we see on other planets in our solar system right now; and so many other items that I'm forced to only touch on the major ones.

      People have come up with it. It's just that people here on Slashdot spend a lot of time ridiculing the theory, which in turn prevents most people from just picking up a book about it and learning it. Once people finally start reading about it, they will realize that we can explain the universe quite well using forces and particles that we already understand. We don't generally need to invent invisible particles to do the work for us. It's taking quite a while though for people to pick up on all of this.

      If you don't believe me, then pick up a copy of "The Electric Sky", which serves as the qualitative basis for the theory. You will be surprised that most, if not all, of the enigmas that plague the mainstream theories actually point to electrical space plasmas.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    33. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      As new technologies allow us to see further into older space, we're always coming across sheit in the sky we can explain.

      I presume you mean "can't" explain.

      The thing is this: in those sciences for which we cannot generally perform controlled laboratory experiments, the only mechanism we really have for testing theories is their predictive track record. If the mainstream theories are failing in this regard -- and they certainly are -- then there's really no other reason to believe in them.

      Wallace Thornhill was able to predict all of the results of the Deep Impact Mission on the basis of EU Theory. One of the things he predicted was that a second pre-impact flash would occur for that mission, and sure enough, there were two flashes recorded. People have yet to stop and think: how could he have gotten that right by chance? What are the real chances that he publicly went on the record and just got lucky?
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    34. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you guys are missing the point. The void correlates with a cold spot within the CMB. The CMB is not supposed to have artifacts. It's supposed to be unrelated to the items between us and it. When you find a relation, that would tend to suggest that the CMB may have a more local source -- which actually threatens the primary proof for the Big Bang in the first place.

      Where did the assertion that the CMB is uncorrelated with other things come from? The CMB is remarkably isotropic (similar in all directions), but not perfectly isotropic. Studying the anisotropies leads to insights about the large-scale structure of the universe. Here are some ways in which other objects can correlate with CMB anisotropies:

      - The CMB, being the remnant of scattered radiation since the universe became transparent, was emitted by the matter that eventually formed the clusters. By the time the universe became transparent, there were fluctuations in the matter distribution. Thus the fluctuations in the CMB should mirror the fluctuations in the early matter distribution of the universe.
      - The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, a description of which you quoted, is basically the Compton effect in reverse. You seem to view the theory behind this effect with a bit of scorn; do you have your own explanation for the correlation between large regions of ionised gas and CMB anisotropies?
      - The Sachs-Wolfe effect, where matter a given CMB radiation photon is passing through redshifts or blueshifts the CMB photon. This happens on two scales: just after the universe becomes transparent (where the anisotropies will be related to the early matter distribution of the universe) and between then and "now". For the latter case, the red/blueshift is due to clusters being in the photon's path. You may realise that a photon climbing in and out of a gravity well should experience no net change in energy, however, over time gravity wells can decay, causing the photon to have a net loss or gain in energy.
    35. Re:Normal by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Could you post a link to a paper on this Electric Universe? Preferably in a peer reviewed journal. The few things I can find are trying to sell some book...

      No really, I am curious.

    36. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's supposed to be unrelated to the items between us and it.
      What arrives here of the CMB most definitely is influenced by the items between us and it. But what else could we expect from a EU proponent? Who needs a basic knowledge of the stuff he's talking about, when he's got an Alternate Theory That Shows EINSTIEN Was Wrong.

    37. Re:Normal by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      Actually, it's more that there is stuff everywhere else that interferes with the radiation we are detecting (the CMB) and in this region nothing is interfering with it, and we are seeing that not-interfered with radiation getting to us through the region. Actually there's stuff in front of and behind this area, it just that we can see those things through and in front of it, and determine their amount of interference.

      That explanation is wrong on so many technical levels, I am sure I'll get roasted, but for a good lay description, it does the job.

      Also, it's wrong to think of this as a "hole". Galaxies, and matter, seem to be distributed through space similar to the way liquid is distributed through foam, i.e. think the head on a beer, with the interior of the bubbles being empty space and the matter forming the surface of the bubbles. The standard model, and variations of String Theory, etc., all predict different values for the largest "bubble" that should be possible in this "foam". This observed void is much larger than any of the current theories suggest should be possible.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    38. Re:Normal by pclminion · · Score: 1

      How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature?

      That's a pretty weird definition of normal. "Humans with 12 toes occur in nature: therefore, having 12 toes is normal."

      We can only define "normal" relative to our typical experiences. I have no idea what other idea of "normal" you are attempting to invoke here.

    39. Re:Normal by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      "So, the SZ effect allows them to explain away the fact that some galaxies are not casting shadows against the CMB. If there isn't a shadow for some of them, then perhaps that's because the photons are being energized by the obstruction."

        You people are loonier than the creationists. Sorry, but it's true...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    40. Re:Normal by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        "I'd go as far as to say that they're right, and that the void *is* a positive indication that there is a big (mostly and unusually) empty spot out there."

        Thank you, Captain Obvious.

        Our next contestant is...

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    41. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Many of these recent articles relate to EU Theory ...

      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYea r=2007&isnumber=4287017

      They do publish outside of vanity presses, but many papers that should occur sometimes never do. We had one situation where a guy had built a rig out of spare parts and around $100 that precisely duplicated the features of Martian Spiders using a CRT monitor and some fiber glass dust. With just $100, he was able to present a possible explanation for something that at one time was considered a great mystery of the solar system. He presented everything to a journal and he was asked to explain how it might be that planets might store and trade electrical charges. This guy made this rig in his garage. He clearly knows nothing like that. A good case could be made that it is an impossible requirement to be met because it is a contentious subject. The general gist was that electrical terra-forming is not an option for at least that journal -- which is really quite sad because the evidence in support of it is plentiful.

      NASA's seeing it on Io right now, and they're about to return more shots of it on Enceladus. We're all eagerly waiting over here to see how they're going to explain roving hot ice geysers with super-hot point sources of heat. It seems like an obvious contradiction to me, and I'm not sure that even they will believe themselves.

      To create insurmountable barriers though for publication about the phenomenon seems wacked. This is the kind of crap that those guys have to deal with.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    42. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Oh! That clarifies everything. Thank you so much!

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    43. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      What arrives here of the CMB most definitely is influenced by the items between us and it.

      Clearly, if the CMB is behind galaxies, then it is supposed to cast shadows. My understanding of the problem, actually, is that it has *not* been casting shadows as expected for all galaxies. Luckily, Big Bangers have a lot of tricks in their bag to explain such things. It matters little to the theorists that they might validate these ideas for internal consistency with the rest of their theory. All that really matters, for the most part to them, is that there is some *potential* mathematical explanation for what they see that would allow them to continue to say that their theory is true. When we allow them, though, to so frequently postulate smoke and mirrors to explain enigmatic findings, smoke and mirrors eventually become the norm, and the public begins to accept the idea that common sense does not apply to our observations of space. That's how you end up with ideas like nothingness absorbing light. What's surprising though is why they don't just call this "Tired Light Theory" because that's what it really is, eh?

      The gravitational lensing explanation for the Einstein Cross makes for a similar example. There was never any serious effort to validate that theory, and in fact, the quasars continued to brighten over time rather than fading in, then out, as we would expect with a lensing effect. But, people don't care much to validate that these concepts are actually true. It's more important that they be postulated, and then everybody moves on, so that people like Halton Arp can be "proven" to be the heretic that he allegedly is for alleging that what we see are not tricks, but instead, exactly what they appear to be.

      Who needs a basic knowledge of the stuff he's talking about, when he's got an Alternate Theory That Shows EINSTIEN Was Wrong.

      It's perhaps worth mentioning that even Einstein constantly doubted himself, and when he died, "Worlds in Collision" was left on his desk. Einstein and the big bad Velikovsky were actually good friends. You're aware of all of this, right? Are you aware that Carl Sagan would say anything in public, even if it meant contradicting his own publications, in order to dispute Velikovsky's assertions? Are you aware that the very man who created magnetohydrodynamics, the mathematical models used today to model space plasmas, pleaded with astrophysicists to stop modeling space plasmas as fluids that can instantaneously neutralize charge imbalances and that possess frozen-in-place magnetic fields? In other words, the man who created much of the math that is used today to model the universe as a gravitational system argued that the universe is in fact an electrical system. He was of course completely ignored.

      What people tend to ignore is the fact that there is valuable information in the *stories* behind the theories too. The stories, in fact, are absolutely crucial to formulating any meaningful opinion. And in order to get the stories, you have to actually read what the heretics are saying. And this ultimately is where Slashdotters go wrong: they believe that they can understand everything they need to understand by just listening to the people espousing the popular theories. Many people here don't recognize the utility in allowing somebody else who disagrees with the mainstream to play devil's advocate. Without heretics, you have no meaningful discussion of the data and interpretations. All you end up with is a rote memorization of what the popular theories say, rather than a thoughtful treatment of the material that encourages two groups to engage in intellectual battles.

      Let me ask you: How successful do you think this approach will be in zeroing in on an ultimate theory of everything? In a real general sense, if we actively suppress meaningful debate and encourage everybody to think the same, how effective will this strategy be?

      Ultimately, it is our approach to the problem that will determine our success with it.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    44. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      And you know, I think that it's very important that these explanations be available to people for consideration. All of these ideas need to be debated. The problem is that there is a possible electrical plasma explanation as well that, from what I can tell, is not being objectively or rigorously investigated or debated. There is no serious discourse on the idea that our mathematical models for space plasmas might be wrong -- as Hannes Alfven attempted to warn everybody -- in spite of a large volume of evidence that double layers may be more common than is currently accepted within the mainstream. And so, when it is observed that unusually energetic forces are occurring in deep space that our current fluids-oriented plasma models cannot explain, there is rarely a serious investigation into the legitimacy of the models themselves, or how they are being applied. Instead, it is typically postulated that the fluids equations *must* be right and that there *must* be some invisible particles that are causing our observations. Well, a rational person, before postulating the presence of invisible particles, would consider that perhaps they had made a mistake. And the heretical view of the Electric Universe Theory, that everybody here thinks is so preposterously not worth anybody's time, does nothing more bold than this. That's it! They are merely arguing that space plasmas should be modeled as electrical phenomenon that can and do frequently formulate double layers and violate quasi-neutrality, as we observe within the laboratory.

      In the lab, as you likely know, plasmas respond to changes in charge density with changes in luminosity and electrical resistance according to three curves: the dark mode curve, the glow curve and the arc mode curve. Within the dark mode, plasmas can continue to conduct electricity and yet, exhibit no luminosity, making them excellent candidates for explaining dark matter. And yet, there is no interest whatsoever amongst the mainstream theorists in investigating this possibility. And even when computer models demonstrate that dark matter tends to be arranged in filamentary structures (!), exactly as plasmas do within the laboratory, they still refuse to consider that dark mode electrical plasmas could in fact be causing what they prefer to believe is dark matter.

      It's the lack of meaningful debate that is the problem. In the realm of possible solutions to problems, we should *always* consider the notion that "what we observe is simply true" as a possible candidate. Instead, many times, the simple explanation is sidelined when it threatens the mainstream theories. In this particular case, the idea that the cold spot in the CMB is cold because there is a lack of matter there emitting the EM appears to not be a candidate even though it would be the simplest explanation of the data were it not for the consensus that the CMB is at the "edge".

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    45. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing. We need people to disagree and discuss.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    46. Re:Normal by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're welcome.

    47. Re:Normal by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      You people are loonier than the creationists. Sorry, but it's true...

      Setting aside the obvious ambiguity in your statement (are you calling the SZ effect crazy or my skepticism of it?), have you ever considered that you are doing nothing more than parroting the statements of those around you without actually looking into the arguments? I mean, I've been reading about EU Theory for a full year now and it doesn't even remotely resemble Creationism. In fact, many of the technical Creationist arguments can quite easily be hijacked by the EU Theorists and used to prove that religious themes have a scientific basis. No God is necessary.

      I'm guessing that you're speaking specifically to the notion that my conviction in EU Theory is like the conviction of Creationists. If that's the case, I would argue that a better analogy would be the conviction of Big Bang advocates to Creationists because BB advocates will oftentimes ignore evidence that contradicts their theory in favor of highly exotic mathematical explanations. Math can be like a religion too when its postulation is considered to be sufficient to explain something. When there is little consideration to the likelihood that these postulated theories are true, and few attempts to check for internal consistency between all of the theories, then mathematics can be transformed into a tool for creating conviction where evidence is not supportive. Many advocates of the mainstream theories clearly do not even understand the math itself, and yet they will point to the CMB as a basis for their conviction that the mainstream theories are true. A more rational person might allow some room for self-doubt when the proof being offered is so complex and mathematical.

      Just to be clear, EU Theorists are in fact arguing that we need to re-examine our astrophysical fundamentals, and allow for common sense to play a bigger role in our interpretations of space observations. Mathematics plays an irreplaceable role in formulating and comparing theories of the universe, but mathematics should never be prioritized over common sense or qualitative arguments. They each play an equal, vital role in understanding our surroundings, and non-mathematical arguments can be just as powerful, if not more powerful, then highly mathematical arguments.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    48. Re:Normal by Zombywuf · · Score: 1

      The Big Bang isn't Einstein. Einstein thought /he/ was wrong about the cosmological fudge factor/dark energy.

      --
      If you can read this you've gone too far.
    49. Re:Normal by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Did you even RTFA?

      What about dark matter, non-luminous dust, or a large number of small black holes?

      The "void" cited in the article is a "hole" in the cosmic microwave background, and is not necessarily related to any lack of matter in a particular region of space.

      The possibility that this may be related to a large vaccuum in the universe really isn't as obvious as it seems.

  32. Oh No!! by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    Oh no!!! The Nothing will eat the universe!! Quick, take me to the empress!

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  33. Wow! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Funny

    A photo of a hole...in the the biggest emptiness in the universe. I can see that one winning competitions.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:Wow! by lheal · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Well, not exactly. My first thought was that Rosie O'Donnell could now explain to us that it's simple physics: how could there be a hole there, because a vacuum has nothing in it you could make a hole in.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    2. Re:Wow! by uberjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear photos of holes are actually pretty popular on the internets.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    3. Re:Wow! by IConrad01 · · Score: 1
      Wow, indeed. Science has now successfully master Zen Buddhism:

      "What is the sound of one hand clapping, young Science?"

      "Pshaw! What is the image of a hole inside of emptiness?" |pointing to said photograph|

  34. Tell me about CO2 now by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

    We finally found trace of civilization that screw their ecosystem more then we are able to (so far!). When they converted to energy everything in range of 1 billion years for their gigantic SUVs they moved elsewhere. But where did they go? ... Oh... wait...

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Tell me about CO2 now by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Six to ten billion years ago? I don't think the Universe was hospitable to life at that time for a civilization to evolve and make a mess this huge.

  35. Someone explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through a region of space populated by matter. This effect is caused by the enigmatic "dark energy" that is accelerating the expansion of the Universe. This gain in photon energy makes the CMB appear slightly warmer in that direction. When the photons pass through an empty void, they lose a small amount of energy from this effect, and so the CMB radiation passing through such a region appears cooler.


    So this void is filled with more than average dark energy causing it to expand quicker than other places and thereby enlengthening wavelengths?
    1. Re:Someone explain this? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Isn't it also possible that the cold spot in the CMB is actually just related to the void in space, as they are suggesting? I mean, it seems more likely than all of these other things that are being suggested for the relation ...

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  36. Ob by edittard · · Score: 1

    That's no hole ...

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:Ob by bateleur · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of original commentary disturbing.

  37. I just did laundry... by mathfeel · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...so that's where my socks went.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  38. Did they try... by Karpe · · Score: 1

    Cleaning up their lenses? You never know...

  39. There's a hole in my Universe by tomrud · · Score: 1

    There's a hole in my Universe dear Liza, dear Liza
    There's a hole in my Universe dear Liza, a hole.

    Well, fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
    Well, fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it.
    ...

    --
    For a nice date: Call strftime(3C)!
    1. Re:There's a hole in my Universe by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm looking through a hole in the sky
      I'm seeing nowhere through the eyes of a lie
      I'm getting closer to the end of the line
      I'm living easy where the sun doesn't shine

      One of Black Sabbath's lesser known, but still excellent works.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  40. One post, two eps, three oblig. Futurama quotes by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fry: Let me ask you something. Has anyone ever discovered a hole in nothing with monsters in it? 'Cause if I'm the first, I want them to call it a "Fry Hole".

    ---

    Fry: So what do you nerds want?
    Nichelle Nichols: It's about that rip in space-time that you saw.
    Stephen Hawking: I call it a Hawking Hole.
    Fry: No fair! I saw it first!
    Stephen Hawking: Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?

    ---

    Farnsworth: Yes, we tore the universe a new space-hole, alright. But it's clenching shut fast!

    1. Re:One post, two eps, three oblig. Futurama quotes by wylderide · · Score: 1

      So that's where Nagilum got to.

      --
      This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
    2. Re:One post, two eps, three oblig. Futurama quotes by uberjoe · · Score: 1
      Fry: Let me ask you something.

      I think you mean axs.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    3. Re:One post, two eps, three oblig. Futurama quotes by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      He originally used the archaic pronunciation, similar to how he calls it "Christmas". Remember, that was a scenario presented by the "What If?" machine when asked, "What if I never fell into that freezer-doodle and came to the future-jiggy?" So, at the time, he would not have been introduced to the modern version, except possibly from an out-of-control teens episode of Maury Povich.

  41. Good news... by brui2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Good news, Mr. President, they found your brain!

  42. Duh by quokkapox · · Score: 1

    Of course there's a big hole somewhere in the universe of observable spacetime.

    The universe is fractal, it's congruent across all scales and infinite in all dimensions.

    The galaxies are just like young solar systems on a much grander scale. Every star is like an atom, and every atom is a like a star. Me, I'm a up quark. And root canals are quite tolerable with sufficient nitrous oxide followed by liberal doses of prescription opiates.

    G'night.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Duh by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      I loves this post.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
  43. fragmentation by Carbon016 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Universe needs to stop running defrag every few million years, it's leaving giant empty space holes and confusing the scientists.

    1. Re:fragmentation by Wiseazz · · Score: 1

      With at least one pass to zero-fill... Methinks God is as paranoid as I am.

      --
      My sig sucks.
  44. clearly... by OnyxLilninja · · Score: 1

    a giant cloud of ink shat out by a god-squid... obvious when you think it through.

  45. I for one by hey · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new giant hole overlords.

    1. Re:I for one by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      In Korea, only old people have gaping holes....

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
  46. It's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys are getting all worked up about nothing.

  47. Vanamonde's Little Brother by djmoore · · Score: 1

    Oh my gosh, I hope the Black Sun hasn't failed!

    --
    In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
    1. Re:Vanamonde's Little Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The entity trapped in the Black Sun would be Vanamonde's *big* brother!

    2. Re:Vanamonde's Little Brother by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      big and *very* evil.

  48. they really dont was to see whats there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see two reasons

    1. Its like hole in the cheese. It's big for relatively dense cheese. And its common.

    2. There is no hole, but cloaking device. In general there is no dark matter too.
    There is a lot of alien life going around lot of habitable planets, but they are all hidden, because they don't want us to wait/pray/whatever for them. They just don't want us to find them too early or at all..

  49. Nearly but not quite by ynotds · · Score: 1

    an exponentially growing pack of machinery that does nothing but turns the matter it find into more copies of itself
    Change that to: "an exponentially growing pack of machinery that does nothing but turn 'empty' space into more copies of itself" and you get very close to an idea I've been playing with for a while that the Hubble expansion is an aggregate of a space production process which naturally (anti)gravitates to the voids.

    Some other comments in TFA certainly seem to add evidence that is better than consistent with my idea:

    The region had been previously been dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot," because it stood out in a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation made by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite. (...)

    Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
    CMB photons are stretched by the expansion of space thereby losing energy.
    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  50. Oh, there it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I love about space science. The fact that you can 'find' something a billion light years across. Like it's small enough that you could losse it in the first place. Like, "hey, what's that over there? That little cluster of black pixels in the corner of this hubble image?" "What, that? Oh, that's just something a a billion light years across that we never even noticed before. Check this out though, I just found a nude sunbather on Betelgeuse 15b."

    I mean a billion light years. It's insane. Take 168000 miles. Multiply it by 60, then by 60 again, then by 24, then by 365.25, then multiply it by a frickin BILLION! I mean, you thought it was a long way down the road to the chemist...

  51. I know what happened here. by MOMOCROME · · Score: 2, Funny

    Billions of years ago, the Emperor Gortron IV of the Hugalugag Empire discovered the existence of other intelligent races in neighboring solar systems. The very fact of this, the mere idea of other races so infuriated the Emperor that he decreed them all illegal and ordered his vast military machine to wipe them out.

    His generals tried many different approaches but none served to eliminate the threat completely. In fact, often times, the attempt would so infuriate the enemy that they would buzz about the borderlands of the Empire for years on end, death-raying this, atomic blasting that until they could finally be stamped out by the Hugalugagians with plain old fashioned space wars. This only further enraged the Emperor, and so he held a contest open to any of his citizens that could fashion a means to end the threat once and for all without requiring the messiness of pitched combat and planetary siege. The race of Hugalugag was quite xenophobic from top to bottom, from the least peasant in the fields to the mighty Emperor on high, and so everyone turned their thoughts on how to eradicate the menace of 'otherness' that surrounded them.

    One day a simple weaponsmith by the name of Nancypoo Gammatron approached the throne with his proposal. This took a great deal of courage, for when the Emperor listened to the proposals of all that had come before, he only listened far enough to find a potential weakness in the plan and immediately ordered the presenter disintegrated. Proposals had become infrequent of late, which in turn further enraged the already apoplectic Emperor when he thought on it. Nevertheless, Nancypoo felt he had a fine idea. His great innovation was all in the scale of things. The Hugalugugians would build a gun so gigantic that they could march it out to one enemy star system and use their sun as a bullet to shoot the sun of yet another enemy, and so on until all enemies even remotely able to reach them were reduced to ash before they knew what hit them.

    The Emperor was pleased with this idea indeed. So impressed that he ordered ten thousand of these guns be made with all due haste. And though the Hugalugagians would need to dismantle much of their empire to construct the weapons, including many planets and stars of their own, and it would take millions of years to stage the attack, at the end, the Hugalugagians might finally have a sense of peace and security. Which is really what it is all about, in the end- assuaging the vague fears with brutal violence.

    You can rest assured that the Emperor's forces cleaned out their own galaxy only to find the next galaxy over teaming with filthy others, and so the troops marched on, ever on, cleaning out one galaxy after another until any potential threat was addressed, a never ending assault on a reality that didn't jibe with their mean psychology and ancient traditions, until even today. For though we can only see a hole in the universe one billion light years across, you can bet that they've been hard at work all the time the light has taken to reach us way out here in our galaxy, so that even now there is a lonley little planet orbiting around a lonely little star in a void many times the size of the big blank spot we can make out from our hopefully remote-enough vantage point here in the Milky Way.

    1. Re:I know what happened here. by pohl · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that excellent tale. It went down like a tall, cold glass of Stanislaw Lem.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  52. Last words of the guys who lived there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Oops."

  53. They DID it! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

    They finally did it! Those Maniacs! They stopped Plan Nine and now they blew up their own solarbonite bombs! Damn them! Now the unstoppable chain reaction from their part of space has started! God damn them all to hell!

    1. Re:They DID it! by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? Plan 9 is alive and well.

      --
      mod me funny
  54. Grit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's grit on the telescope. See, the thing about grit is, it's black. And the thing about billion light-year-wide holes in space, your basic billion light-year-wide hole in space colour...

  55. No surprise. by dday376 · · Score: 1

    It's where the chronotons were.

    --
    "C'mon freedom cage, roll me to safety!" - Philip J. Fry
  56. lock up your kids... by Bazzargh · · Score: 1
  57. I am disappointed by Shohat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not an astronomer/astrophysicis, but this is a really interesting story, it's a real shame that 80% of the >filter comments are "Funny".

    1. Re:I am disappointed by pln2bz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People appear to not actually understand that this is a problem for the mainstream theories. It's quite surreal, actually.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=278497&cid=203 41295

      If anybody notices it, that one's gonna stir the pot!

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    2. Re:I am disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because it's so interesting that most here don't know about it, so being funny is the only possible response. It shows we know nothing, but still hold interest in it enough to post about it.

    3. Re:I am disappointed by Uberwabawaba · · Score: 2

      Heh I have to agree, slashdot is great for tidbits of information but useless for any kind of actual discussion.

    4. Re:I am disappointed by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      I am not an astronomer/astrophysicis, but this is a really interesting story, it's a real shame that 80% of the >filter comments are "Funny".
      [ Reply to This ] Blame the mods. They could make marked my joke as interesting instead.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:I am disappointed by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      I'm not an astronomer either. It's hard to add insightful comments when I know nothing about the subject. I have a feeling I'm not alone here. That's why there are so many jokes. Lighten up!

    6. Re:I am disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's a real shame that 80% of the >filter comments are "Funny".

      Really? I didn't know - because I have my preferences set to rank down "funny" comments -2. When I first joined /. they were funny, but after so many years, the sophomoric humor and geek inside jokes are just no longer entertaining and mostly just seem stupid. Mainly, though, it is a waste of time.

    7. Re:I am disappointed by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      Thats the thing, not everyone has the background to fully digest the content of this story. It would be great if more people who understood this stories content posted more information here but I do enjoy some of the funny comments. Defrag'n the universe and the sock comments were enough to give me a good chuckle.

      I myself don't know enough about astronomy and math to fully appreciate this story, I do love reading about it though. Still two things entered my mind when I first read over it:

      1> Oh god, pissed off fuel rocks are blowing up stars from the core of the universe and we haven't even left our own planets orbital path as a species in maned space flight.

      2> Where the hell is William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy?? There's a freak'n giant one celled organism in that void gobbling up everything!

      Once the factual information stops, my mind starts to roam about.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    8. Re:I am disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Maybe there could be an update to the >filter, so that people could focus on e.g. ">+4 Informative", or, even... "-1 Troll" (if the mood struck one). It shouldn't be that difficult to implement.

    9. Re:I am disappointed by BooRolla · · Score: 1

      Mod parent "+5 Funny"

    10. Re:I am disappointed by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      A +3 post that just links to another post in the same article? Did your friends have mod points today or something?

    11. Re:I am disappointed by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      I was going to recommend the same thing. Applying a negative score for funny mods seems to work well because it means more mods have to agree it is funny to bump it above your filter.

    12. Re:I am disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the preferences to set a 'reason modifier' for funny to -1.

    13. Re:I am disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. It could be:

      - an alien civilization that we can actually "see" from here - a billion light-year Dyson sphere
      - the void left over from the Big Bang
      - the perimeter around an anti-matter star or an object with negative gravitational force
      - a inter-galactic "crater" left after an implosion or annihilation of a kind we don't yet understand
      - one BIG wormhole
      - this space left intentionally blank

      Discoveries like this are fantastic because put our understanding of the universe to the test. If we can't explain this blank spot, then we have a litmus test for our theories about physics and astronomy against this new object, anti-object, or suspicious lack of objects as the case may be.

  58. More to home, There's A Fucking Crack in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found out what it is that's been driving me mad
    There's no room to breathe between the good and the bad
    The crush in-between, there's a thin, thin line
    But just 'round the corner, there's a change in design
    I wish I could walk away
    And dig what the preacher said
    But those words don't satisfy me no more
    There's a crack, there's a crack in the world
    There's a crack, there's a crack in the world
    There's a crack, there's a crack in the world
    Just fifty more years we're all gonna know
    Why, when, where, how, and who get's to go
    So let's all have a good time before the great divide
    'Cause things will start separating come 2025
    So look for the subtle clues
    It won't make the front-page news
    That depends upon which side that you choose
    There's a crack, there's a crack in the world
    There's a crack, there's a crack in the world, yeah
    There's a crack, there's a crack in the world

    By, I Can't Drive 55 S/S, Ben 'Wabos' Dover

  59. Aaaaiiiiieeeee! Acme Has Run Amok! by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    We need to stop the hole pollution that's building up in space or someday our entire galaxy could fall in....

    If we look down, anyway.

  60. Huge hole by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    It's full of sta...

    .. or maybe not.

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Huge hole by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      .. or maybe not.

      Well Bowman had to be in exactly the right spot to trigger the monolith so if it was a wormhole we might not see it from here.

      OTH I wonder what a big blob of antimatter would do to the CMB signature. Would it show up as a mass depleted volume of space?

  61. this thread is useless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... without pics

    1. Re:this thread is useless ... by QMO · · Score: 4, Funny

      As requested, a pic.

      []

      There. I even framed it for you.
      If you copy and paste what's in the frame into something else, you can zoom in as far as you want.

      Oh, I should mention that it's the negative.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    2. Re:this thread is useless ... by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you should copyright that pic, then sue anybody who every displays even a portion of it without your approval.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    3. Re:this thread is useless ... by gr33nlantern · · Score: 1

      First 6+ visible comments are all rated Funny? Am I the only one who is disturbed by this?

    4. Re:this thread is useless ... by ROMRIX · · Score: 1

      As requested, a pic.

      I've seen pictures similar to this but none that capture the essence of the "Void" as yours so eloquently does.
    5. Re:this thread is useless ... by QMO · · Score: 1

      You should only be disturbed if none of them are funny.

      (So, we should all cower under our beds.)

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  62. It's obviously by Misanthrop · · Score: 1

    a huge invisibility shield!

    1. Re:It's obviously by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      If it's supposed to be hiding something it's not doing a very good job. :-)

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  63. Star Trek 1 - Real Science 0 by Big+Nothing · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Didn't we allready see this in a couple of Star Trek episodes?

    Star Trek is once again way ahead of "real" science. Why don't the so-called scientists just watch Star Trek and write their books and scientific papers based on what is portrayed in Star Trek? That way we would leap ahead HUNDREDS OF YEARS in scientific discoveries; we'd allready have faster-than-light travel and transporter technology. That'd be cool. I'd be transporting hot girls into my bedroom all day long. Gaaahhhh drewl.

    Stoopid scientists. I want girls.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    1. Re:Star Trek 1 - Real Science 0 by Synonymous+Dastard · · Score: 0

      Hey, the hero of this story comes here and he results being modded Offtopic!

  64. come on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    google space coords plz!

  65. Actually, it's Stanislaus Lem by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    The Machine that created Nothing. Read the book, Trurl and Klapaucius turned it off just in time to prevent the total disappearance of the Universe, but left big holes in reality.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  66. A hole in THE UNIVERSE, you say?? by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1, Funny

    Gosh, this IS exciting!!! So what's coming through the hole from outside the universe???? I can't wait to find out!!

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:A hole in THE UNIVERSE, you say?? by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      It's really a lovely universe, but I'm not sure I'm willing to pay full price with that hole in it. Can you give me some sort of discount or would I have to talk to your manager?

  67. "no one ever found a void this big" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... looks like they probed Ms. Hilton's head by mistake.

  68. Nothing to see here. by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Move along.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  69. Breakdown of modern cosmology by Ginger_Chris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the fundamental approximations in modern cosmology is that the universe is both isotropic and homogeneous over large scales (such as those which treat galaxies as point objects). This size hole s fairly big, and is noticeable on even this scale. This means there could be a special point in the universe, which caused all sorts of problems. Does this mean we have to re-think our basic theory of cosmology, or is this size hole possible under current theories, even if it is extremely unlikely to form. (the universe is a big place, even if something has a minuscule probability it still could happen somewhere out there. Personally I think it was placed there by the universe to test our belief in God not existing.

    1. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      If there was a Big Bang, then all matter would have emanated from that single point in the universe and moved outward, leaving a huge hole of nothing. This site could simply be where the Big Bang occured.

    2. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was a Big Bang, then all matter would have emanated from that single point in the universe and moved outward, leaving a huge hole of nothing. This site could simply be where the Big Bang occured.

      I really hope you're joking. Because it's a little bit funny if you aren't serious. If you are serious, it's really sad.

    3. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Graff · · Score: 1

      If there was a Big Bang, then all matter would have emanated from that single point in the universe and moved outward, leaving a huge hole of nothing. This site could simply be where the Big Bang occured. The problem is that the way the universe is expanding from the Big Bang (at least the way we theorize it) means there isn't a single spot that you can point to and say "there's the center".

      I'll simplify it a bit so that it's easily illustrated. Suppose you have a sheet of paper and in the center of the sheet is the origin point of the universe, put a dot there. Now place a bunch of dots evenly spread on a one inch circle centered on that dot. Draw a line from the center through each dot and then place another dot along each at two inches from the center. Repeat this at three inches and so on. You should have several rings of dots centered around the central dot.

      Each ring of points would represent a snapshot in time of the universe expanding. The one inch circle might represent 1 billion years, two inches 2 billion years, and so on. Lets say the outermost ring represents the present. You'll notice that with each ring there is no gap that wasn't part of your original placement of dots. Since the expansion is over time your center is at time zero and doesn't show up on any single ring.

      This is a simple two dimensional graph of a four dimensional topic. You have a one dimensional universe (each ring) which expands outward (the second dimension, representing time). Our universe is at least four dimensions, 3 physical and one temporal. What we see in the actual universe is that every point is getting further from each point in physical space. This type of expansion doesn't allow for there to be a center in the physical dimensions, rather there is a center in the temporal dimension that we don't see with any snapshot of the expansion.

      The hole described in this article is most likely due to an uneven distribution or influence upon the universe's expansion. It would be similar to if the initial dots on your graph had a large gap in them, or if the lines you drew outwards weren't completely straight.
    4. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      No, that isn't what the Big Bang theory claims at all. The Big Bang didn't happen in existing space; rather, spacetime itself expanded from that singularity. Matter, once it formed, mostly stayed where it was, clumping a little but generally becoming uniformly less dense as the spacetime it's embedded in expanded.

      The weird thing here is that the void is on a much larger scale than any clumping we've observed: for some reason either matter inexplicably didn't form there, or something happened to it on a cosmically unimaginable scale. The matter didn't simply get pushed around, or moved towards the edges by non-uniform spacetime expansion, or we'd see increased density near the edges of the void (which we don't).

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    5. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Personally I think it was placed there by the universe to test our belief in God not existing."

      Nobody really belive in god not existing, just pointing out there is no proof and it makes psychologically sense to invent a superbeing who'll love you.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Graff · · Score: 1

      Draw a line from the center through each dot and then place another dot along each at two inches from the center. Oops, I left one word out although what I meant should be apparent from the context:

      "Draw a line from the center through each dot and then place another dot along each LINE at two inches from the center."
    7. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This void (it's not a hole) is just a particularly large version of the large voids that were known before. On large scales galaxies seem to arrange themselves into filaments. The spaces between the filaments are voids. This is a big one. There's no particular reason to think it can't be described by the same processes that caused matter in the early universe to clump.

    8. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      How about this:

      Take a balloon and draw dots all over its surface. Now blow up the balloon. The surface of the balloon is like a 2d universe. The dots all move away from each other but there is no 'center of expansion'.

    9. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Nobody really belive in god not existing, just pointing out there is no proof and it makes psychologically sense to invent a superbeing who'll love you.


      No, really, there are people who do, in fact, believe that God does not in fact exist, as well as those that merely believe that the question of God existing or not is neither useful nor necessary to answer since God is not, in their view, necessary or useful in explaining any observed phenomenon.

      Presumably, you don't, but presuming everyone who is not an believer in God differs from believers in the exact same way that you do is extraordinarily arrogant.
    10. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Graff · · Score: 1

      Yeah this is another common example, the reason I didn't use it is because it doesn't show the change over time as clearly and someone might point to the center of the balloon as the void which was mentioned in the article. I thought that by using the graph that I described I might convey the idea more clearly.

      It can be a complicated concept to grasp if you aren't looking at it correctly. I would say that the raisin bread model might be the most clear example but I didn't think to bring it up.

    11. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Presumably, you don't, but presuming everyone who is not an believer in God differs from believers in the exact same way that you do is extraordinarily arrogant."

      Well, if they *believe* there is no god, then that is a different kind of religion and they don't really count ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    12. Re:Breakdown of modern cosmology by FluxIntegrator · · Score: 1

      The hole described in this article is most likely due to an uneven distribution or influence upon the universe's expansion.

      I think you're exactly right. Consider the example of the balloon. There has to be a hole for a person to blow on to make it expand. Perhaps, this "hole" in the universe is where ZPE is flooding in from connected universes in the multiverse? Perhaps, high and low density pockets of ZPE are what we call "dark matter"? Then, perhaps, the force created by "dark matter" would then be caused by a differential in the ZPE?

      This would explain the "void" as a huge inlet for ZPE into the universe forcing the universe to expand. This would also explain the mysterious acceleration in the expansion of the universe. This would also imply that there was no "Big Bang", at least in our universe, but rather a "Big Inflation". In addition, this would also explain the filament like structures seen in the overall structure of the universe. Like sand on a vibrating plate forms into "modal" patterns on the plate, similarly, in our universe you have the 3D equivalent: ZPE being the "sand", space-time being the plate, vibration caused by the expansion of space-time, and matter grouping along the edges of the pattern formed by ZPE. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other "holes" like this, that connect to other universes in the multiverse. Although, they are probably just other parts of our universe, only accessible through one of these "holes".

      You heard it here first.

  70. Scary by rikkus-x · · Score: 1

    What they didn't tell you (it's just been discovered) is that it's doubling in size every twelve seconds.

  71. Isn't that a confirmation of Heim Theory? by Zdzicho00 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    See: Heim Theory

    I mean here Heim's corrected gravitional law.
    See that snippet:

    The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.

    "Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.

    Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
    Now have a look on Heim's corrected gravitional law:

    Any mass which is situated in the range between the upper border distance R0 and must overcome a very weak repulsion force, if it wants to approach the source of field. Since this effect occurs only for very large distances, it is practically not observable.
    And:

    Finally Heim found that cosmic red shift too is a result of the corrected gravitation law. Therefore each particle of this world must approach primarily against the repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world. (This corresponds to the field curve between and R0.) This is using energy whereby each photon becomes longer in it's wavelength during this journey.
    What do you think about this? Is there any other explanation for this phenomena?
    One more thing. Mumbling about mysterious Dark Mater or Dark Energy isn't an answer.

    /Z
  72. Where the hole is by harris+s+newman · · Score: 1

    It is either in Bush's brain or Cheney's heart.

  73. Maybe Homer was right. by Lunarsight · · Score: 1

    Homer Simpson had theorized the universe was donut-shaped. Maybe we just found the donut hole.

  74. The Vild from David Zindell's 'Neverness'... by knarf · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the 'Vild' from David Zindell's 'Neverness' (go find it at $your_friendly_search_engine or $2ndhand_bookstore), a wavefront of exploding stars which spreads and spreads...

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
  75. Axiom doesn't hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The axoim used is false so the whole statement doesn't hold. I always knew atheists are not real scientists, they just try to use psuedo-science to there advantage, there hate for the creation by G'd is really sad.

  76. Has anyone given any thought... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

    ...to the possibility that it isn't a hole? Maybe someone shot Rosie O'Donnell into space, and she's just blocking out the stars in that area.

  77. So what are they doing to fix it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  78. Coincidentally by maroberts · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have just found a large hole in my sock, which is expanding, I wonder if my socks are an analogue of the Universe. or is it only the left one?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  79. It is obviously... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    ..the donut hole.

  80. Time bubble ? by jonfr · · Score: 1

    This is one big gap in the fabric of space. My guess is that this is a time "bubble", problay containing time that is trillions of years older then the universe around it. That is why it is "empty" (more or less).

    At least this is a good idea, it is not like everyone else have a better idea on what this is.

  81. (Spoiler) War using JL Chalker's Zinder Nullifers? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    From Jack L. Chalker's _Well World_ series:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_L._Chalker
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_World

    SPOILER AHEAD

    "In later books a human scientist named Zinder developed a technology that allowed a human-built AI named Obie to remotely interface with the Well of Souls and change local regions of reality without initially realizing that this is how the reality-manipulations were being done. Zinder and Obie were ultimately lost but human governments later reconstructed part of his research and developed the Zinder Nullifier, a weapon that simply "blanked" the region of space it was targeted at. The Nullifiers were a vital weapon in winning a war of species survival against extragalactic invaders, but when a Nullifier was accidentally used to erase itself from existence it caused an unrecoverable error in the Well of Soul's programming. An expanding region of the universe began going blank and the Well of Souls ultimately had to be rebooted to prevent it from being irreversibly damaged, causing the Universe to end and be recreated."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  82. That's what's going to happen... by dawiz · · Score: 1

    to us as well, once we've found ways to create enough energy to try out one of those neat space-folding theories...

  83. Stay the hell away from there ! by vegiVamp · · Score: 3, Funny

    We don't want the Krikkit guys knowing we're out here.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
    1. Re:Stay the hell away from there ! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      We don't want the Krikkit guys knowing we're out here.

      Just connect a system running Norton antivirus into the Krikkit central war computer (in the absence of a Paranoid Android).

  84. Obligatory Futurama by saxoholic · · Score: 1

    Oh, how convenient. A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work.

  85. move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing to see here.

  86. OK, who's tracking 'Q'? by Ora*DBA · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the Hubble spots five different Enterprises by that hole, I'm outta here...

  87. Ross Perot by iliketrash · · Score: 1

    Hmmm.... Could Ross Perot have been right after all?

  88. Not Normal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe"

    Normal compared to what, exactly? That sentence reads to me like we've pretty much figured out how the whole universe works, and blemishes like this are unnatural. In grade school, I was taught that the universe is X billion years old. Now it's Y billion years old. We also gained a couple more planets in the far reaches of our solar system since then.

    My somewhat-off-topic point here is that there's still so much we don't know about the universe, so lets not get into the mind set of "This is normal" and "That theory may as well be a proof", because the carpet will just get pulled from under us again.

  89. The Real Question... by Philotechnia · · Score: 1

    Is there a log in the hole in the bottom of the universe?

  90. Is this near Uranus? by ThisIsAnonymous · · Score: 0

    So, is this near Uranus? Come on...someone had to ask...

    1. Re:Is this near Uranus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. it is in Eridanus.

  91. Big Bang Start Point ??? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps this was the start point for the big bang ???

    Just fishing wildy here .....

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    1. Re:Big Bang Start Point ??? by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but you are also sitting at the start point of the big bang. Every spot in the universe can make the same claim. "Big bang" is a cool name for it, but it's a bit of a misnomer, as there wasn't anywhere for an actual explosion to occur when it happened. Thinking of the big bang as having a point of origin is a bit like asking "what's outside the universe?" Just as with Oakland, there's no there there. I'd recommend Brian Green's The Elegeant Universe. It's focus is string theory, but to get there you have to go through relativity, the big bang theory and quantum mechanics, as they're all related. He's a gifted science writer and ties it all together in a very accessible way.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    2. Re:Big Bang Start Point ??? by FluxIntegrator · · Score: 1

      Ok, the common example given for the expansion of the universe is points on an expanding balloon. Balloons have a whole which you can blow air into, which then causes the balloon to expand. Perhaps, this void is a connection to the multiverse? The expansion of the universe is due to an influx of ZPE from the multiverse? Perhaps there are other places like this in the universe? Wouldn't this explain dark matter also? Pockets of high and low density ZPE rushing in from these "voids" pushing galaxies around?

  92. Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? The plans for the interstellar bypass have been on file at the local office at alpha centuria for the last six months! Its not our fault if you don't keep current with local affairs.

  93. Maybe it's God... by dantheman82 · · Score: 1

    poking a hole in the Big Bang theory as we know it. :)

    The quote seemed a little strong... "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota. I seem to think from the theory that there ought to be much more uniformity on a grand scale (a scattering into galaxies and such like) and thus no major hole with nothing if all began at one focal point.

    For those who believe in a heaven/hell, perhaps a hole in the universe is how one would get there? I have no idea what theological/philosophical types would say to something like that. Other than that most nowadays probably deny the actual existence of either or both places...

    --
    This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.
    1. Re:Maybe it's God... by 0a100b · · Score: 1

      This is the strongest support for the Big Bang theory that's ever been found! A big bang must leave a big hole.

    2. Re:Maybe it's God... by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      For those who believe in a heaven/hell, perhaps a hole in the universe is how one would get there? I have no idea what theological/philosophical types would say to something like that.

      Since Heaven and Hell are states of being, not places, a physical "portal" seems unnecessary at best.

      That said, this hole isn't even a hole in the universe, just a mind-bogglingly large gap in the matter that sparsely fills it.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
  94. Re:(Spoiler) War using JL Chalker's Zinder Nullife by JrOldPhart · · Score: 1

    Not to worry, Nathan will reboot it.

    --
    Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
  95. Intergalactic Shortcut by Dareth · · Score: 1

    The scene begins shortly after an alien family pulls off the intergalactic freeway into the void.

    Alien Children: Dad, are we there yet.
    Alien Mom: Are you sure this is the best way
    Alien Dad: Don't get your tentacles in a knot, this is a shortcut.
    Alien Mom: Shouldn't you have stopped and fueled up the FTL drive before getting off the IGF?
    Alien Dad: Don't worry, I sure there is a fueling station coming up soon.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  96. This is what happens... by Sir+Foxx · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you mess around with "Omega" particles.

    --
    "I don't which is worse, that everyone has a price, or that the price is always so low"--Hobbes
  97. Meh, this is just by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    much ado about nothing.

  98. The Origin by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Now we know where lawyers and politicians come from.

  99. More interesting question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's in the middle of it?

    The radius of a black hole grows linearly with its weight. Think about it.

  100. Cosmic Dump by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    This is obviously a landfill...errr.. spacefill site for all the waste dark matter...

    Would this be a good time to say " Nothing to see here. Move along"?

    Thought not.

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  101. Chock another one up for Creationism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the article...

    "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe."

    Yet another chink in the armour of the "theory" of evolution, and another notch on the belt for Creationism.
    1. Re:Chock another one up for Creationism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely correct. A Creationist perspective can easily explain this.

      I find it amazing that science speculates on something, finds a tiny shred that possibly substantiates the speculation, and the speculation suddenly becomes "verified truth". Then along comes something that blows a hole in that "truth" and the scientists whine that it isn't "consistent" with their speculations.

      Listening to the sound of the world's smallest violin echoing in the largest known hole....

  102. Woo! by B3ryllium · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Galactic Dyson Sphere!

  103. We don't know a millionth of one percent... by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    about anything -- Thomas Edison.

  104. A little early for the booze, eh? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    ... Apologies. Intoxicated and needing to prove I've read Einstein's theory. Bro, you posted this 6:11 AM - you'd better be over the pond, or a Sys Admin; I can't think of any other explanation to be drinking this early... You don't work at Redmond, do you?
    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  105. It wasn't a giant hole after all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was grit. A big speck of grit on the Scanner-Scope. See, the thing about grit is, it's black, and the thing about Scanner-Scopes...

  106. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by jgarra23 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    How is parent insightful? Because of some nice sounding sentences?

    It's not an issue of intelligence but of free will. Humans have the free will to decide if they go to heaven, or to hell. Animals can't make that decision.

    How do you know this? Because some self-referential book told you? I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with religion but rather all the unsubstantiated assumptions that must be made in order to make this statement true or insightful. I count at least 5.

  107. Why should this be a surprise? by brundlefly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the universe is "infinite", then there's plenty of room for lots of strange anomalies out there. A region which has nothing in it is just a blerp in the standard distribution of matter. One which would seem entirely consistent with anomalies in random distributions, sequences, etc.

    Not only that, but since the universe is constantly expanding and at an ever-increasing rate, greater and greater becomes the possibility of finding big "holes".

    Cool, yes. But it doesn't really surprise me at all. Then again, I'm just a programmer so what do I know?

    1. Re:Why should this be a surprise? by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      If the universe is "infinite", then there's plenty of room for lots of strange anomalies out there. A region which has nothing in it is just a blerp in the standard distribution of matter.

      The size of the universe isn't really relevant. Our existing dataset of the universe is very much finite. Even in an infinite universe, the subset visible to us is not. Invoking infinity and probability only means something when our dataset is infinite, which it plainly is not.

      Something as mathematically basic as such probabilities is not likely to be missed by the entire physics community. Remember that as a rule many of them are better at math than us computer scientists.

  108. -STABLE??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is The Universe we are talking about. There is no -STABLE.

  109. My God by Ranger · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's full of st... Oh, wait never mind.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  110. Could be a sign of ET's by maxm · · Score: 1

    It could be a sign of a large part of the universe that has been converted to computronium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computronium/ using something like Matrioshka brains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain/

    If the area radiated large amount of infrared, it would be further evidence.

    --
    Max M - IT's Mad Science
  111. Boötes void. by MBMarduk · · Score: 1

    Damn, that IS huge. Travel a BILLION years at the speed of light from one end to the other. Fsck me...
    And I already get goose bumps from thinking about the Boötes void (which is only 250M ly across).

  112. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's the great abyss...

    Abyss - Satan sealed
    Abyss - Satan released
    Note: It's recorded as being opened, then sealed, then opened again.

  113. I can't believe it! by Descalzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did no one think of Battlestar Galactica's void before me?

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  114. It's not empty by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    If you look closely, you'll see the first twelve colonies gathered together in a ragtag fleet fleeing the Cylon Empire.

  115. Dr. Device by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    Maybe somebody invented a molecular disruption device and it turned out to dissipate a bit slower than expected. Maybe it's still growing, dissolving molecules as it goes. I wonder what's the resolution of the measurements and whether we could detect growth of this hole in our lifetimes.

  116. Hole in the universe by tina+juarez · · Score: 1

    Have they just discovered the aspect of the universe the ancient (and probably the modern), Mayans call the "eye of the needle"??

  117. Umm... no dark matter??? by CardiganKiller · · Score: 1

    Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos.

    If dark matter is supposed to be undetectable hypothetical matter, and no other matter exists in this void, then how did they determine that the void was empty of dark matter? IANAA (I Am Not An Astronomer).
  118. large scale dyson sphere/matrioshka brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is a concept that using advanced technologies energy emissions will be captured and used to fuel computronium.

    Perhaps this 'hole' is in effect an advanced varient of this technology which is in fact absorbing and using ALL available energy in the region. This might be exactly what we would expect to see from a high order energy collection activity.

  119. KHAN!!! by oldwarrior · · Score: 0

    nt

    --
    If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
  120. It's a "Somebody else's problem" cloaking field! by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    ...therefore it's a huge waste of time for me to even worry about it - although if I were a gambling man, I'd bet you would find Milliways there.

  121. I am going to tear a new space hole by Neko_D · · Score: 1

    That space hole is nothing really. I mean what is the worst that can happen? I mean it is over a billion light years away. If they want something interesting I will tear the universe a new space hole right next to earth. THEN we can care about it.

  122. Never-Ending Story??? Atreyu what is my name!! by ejamie · · Score: 1

    It is the great Nothing coming...

    --
    Hey! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!!
  123. Repeat after me ... by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything" -- Thomas Edison. Think about it. Light travels roughly 5.8 trillion miles in a year. Our galaxy is about 120,000 light years across, give or take 40,000 light years, and it contains an estimated 100 billion stars (scientists are only guessing; they can't see them all). This newly reported area of "dark matter" (translation: uh, we don't know what it is), is a billion light years across -- a billion light years. Any attempt to place definitive explanations on the origins of the universe, its size, how it is expanding (or not), and what fills it, is an exercise in lunacy. We're like blind people feeling away in the dark and trying to describe what we can't even touch. We don't even know what a black hole is; we're only guessing based on what happens at the event horizon. Science is a great discipline -- I fell in love with it even before college -- but the scientific community needs an enormous dose of humility; and that's not something I see a lot of these days. Every news story that I see about scientific discovery is more often than not missing huge qualifiers, such as scientists theorize that... Think about it. The laws of physics that apply to us here and in the space that immediately surrounds our infinitesimally small portion of our galaxy may not apply in other regions of the universe -- of that I'm convinced based on what we can't explain. It's an amazing universe. Personally, I can't wait to see what we stumble on next.

    1. Re:Repeat after me ... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the article said it was devoid of "dark matter", they freely admit they have no idea what this void is.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    2. Re:Repeat after me ... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      well actually the void is just that a void, it's not a hole in space or the universe, it's just a place where there is much less of the matter which is in more normal areas of space is almost nothing.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Repeat after me ... by pkulak · · Score: 1

      "This newly reported area of 'dark matter' (translation: uh, we don't know what it is), is a billion light years across..." The whole point of the story is that there is _no_ dark matter in the thing.

    4. Re:Repeat after me ... by Bearhouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With you 100% - but then again, if you look at;

      1. The biographies of many 'great' scientists, (selfish, obsessed and frankly quite often mad),
      2. How hard it is to get funding for 'real' science these days,

      Then I suppose a little hyperboyle is inevitable, indeed perhaps necessary

    5. Re:Repeat after me ... by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Funny

      The important question is, can little people use it to rob Napoleon and Sean Connery and others?

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    6. Re:Repeat after me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The whole point of the story is that there is _no_ dark matter in the thing.
      No dark matter, no black holes, no spinning frames of reference... does this mean physicists have finally found a region of the universe where they can actually explain what's going on?
    7. Re:Repeat after me ... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I wonder, is that a part of space the speed of gravity could be measured?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    8. Re:Repeat after me ... by Paracelcus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I seem to remember some PhD windbag pontificating in a very (don't you dare question me) tone that there really isn't that much more to learn and that the fundamental knowledge base for theoretical physics has been laid to rest. I really wanted to scream, foam and spew at him but I didn't.

      Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back, we really don't know shit!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    9. Re:Repeat after me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they freely admit they have no idea what this void is....

      But surely that's obvious. There's nothing to it.

    10. Re:Repeat after me ... by garlicbready · · Score: 1

      hmmm great big whole in the universe

      well see that's what happens when you go looking for the higgs boson
      evaporating black holes my ass

    11. Re:Repeat after me ... by jinxidoru · · Score: 1

      I am all for scientists prefixing everything they say with "We theorize..." as long as religious people stop saying "God exists" and start saying "We theorize that God exists."

    12. Re:Repeat after me ... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      If the universe curves into itself, the very center of the hole is the 'edge' of the universe. If the universe is expanding, this hole - or the distance between the 'furthest' star and the center of the hole - will decrease in size.

      And the Big Crunch theory returns.

      I believe the universe has two poles similar to that of a sphere (only it's a hyper sphere). If you imagine the stars of the universe as dots drawn on a sphere, when the dots move out from one point or pole, they will eventually make contact at the other. If the hypersphere were expanding, it would grow in size, and every galaxy, solar system, star, planet, and object would be ripped apart at the molecular level. That's not happening, so what we're really seeing are stars racing toward each other to the other side of the universe.

      Of course, this is only right if the universe curves into itself, and if we live on the surface of a hypersphere. It could be an irregular hypershape... or a torus... or the universe could really be infinite in size. I also could just be wrong. I didn't RTFA, and I'm not a scientist.

    13. Re:Repeat after me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1: Reference to an obscure British comedy produced by George Harrison

      "Randall: You see, to be quite frank, Kevin, the fabric of the universe is far from perfect. It was a bit of botched job, you see. We only had seven days to make it. And that's where this comes in. This is the only map of all the holes. Well, why repair them? Why not use them to get stinking rich?"

    14. Re:Repeat after me ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a scientist, I'll say this: thanks for letting me know that any speculation about anything I'm not 100% sure of is worthless. I'll stop any work on anything that isn't obvious right away. In return, I ask that you live up to your end of the bargain: give up any and all technology that has resulted from anyone ever speculating a little bit beyond the then-current limits of knowledge, and go back to chipping flint tools and living in a cave. Do we have a deal?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:Repeat after me ... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      If they have no idea what "dark matter" is how do they know its not there?

      Yes, yes, I know, gravitation/lensing etc., but its funny!

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    16. Re:Repeat after me ... by c_woolley · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap that is a lot of big numbers. I'm still trying to count to 21, but have run out of fingers and toes....OH WAIT...Made it!

    17. Re:Repeat after me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds to me like your issue is with science reporting, not science itself. Ever actually read a scientific paper? You won't find many final, definitive, declarations in there. Every scientist *knows* how much they don't know, and the best they can do is try to interpret their findings within the context of the larger body of knowledge garnered with the scientific method. In fact, every news story I've ever seen on science that I actually know about (IAAP) is wrong to some degree. That's not surprising, as a journalist isn't a scientist and generally only takes quotes and tries to place them into the context of the story by way of analogy (an analogy that was robably given to them by the scientist), and they are bound to get things wrong. But that's not the scientists' fault.

      Oh, and we may be guessing, but they are educated guesses. If you really think science is so unsure and faulty, turn on a light switch. It's not luck that the bulb starts to shine, and it's not arrogance to say that if it doesn't, you need to replace the bulb.

    18. Re:Repeat after me ... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      ...but the scientific community needs an enormous dose of humility; and that's not something I see a lot of these days.
      I hear this sometimes, but the truth is, technology works. It works well. Your life depends on it every day. We may not know everything, and I don't think anyone has ever made that claim, but we DO have a lot of the stuff right, because we put our knowledge of it to work for us every single day. I don't think scientists need humility, I think they need a big pat on the back. People need to trust them more. Because even if they're not right, they're probably more right than anyone else who's peddling "answers".
      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    19. Re:Repeat after me ... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1
      You're right. They're practically astrologers when it comes to anything new they find. They're the same kind of people who look up and see an all silver hot air balloon and assume the simplest explanation is that it's an alien spacecraft from another world that nobody's ever seen before that's not technologically advanced enough to hide itself.
      Seriously, you can't get a visible reading of anything in a big area so logically there must be nothing there at all? That's just stupid. What if there's a waaaaay smaller gob of something dark that's waaaay closer that's blocking out that entire area so we just can't see what's behind it and it looks empty. Even worse though is, the title completely lies. A hole in "space" would mean there's no space there and you can't travel through it. But according to this:

      Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos.
      there's nothing saying you can't travel through it. Maybe there's no matter there because there's no matter there. Who says when space stuff blew up and started spreading out that it did it precisely evenly. Maybe no matter went that direction, duh! As for dark matter, or as real scientists like to call it, completely normal matter that just doesn't have any radiation detectable by us reflecting off it, it's no big surprise that's not there either if there's no matter that we can see
      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    20. Re:Repeat after me ... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        Empty?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    21. Re:Repeat after me ... by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      "We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything" -- Thomas Edison.
      That "seems" true, but there is no way to know that. We might really know 99% of everything, and the remaining 1% is almost impossible to grasp- yet that information might be so critical it would explain absolutely everything.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    22. Re:Repeat after me ... by yusing · · Score: 1

      If you insist on holding onto an attitude like that, you may actually stand a chance of discovering something significant, instead of adding a digit or two of precision to some theory....

      Right on about the humility; right on about missing huge qualifiers. Thanks for the fresh air.

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    23. Re:Repeat after me ... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah? I guess you're one of those people who would criticize the phrase: "The human brain is the most complex object in the universe." [Frequent phrase found in Discover Magaizine and on moronic commercials.]

      Why are you guys always bringing logic into the equation? There's one group out there (Americans) who can't handle logic. Please keep that in mind.

    24. Re:Repeat after me ... by PureStardust · · Score: 1

      Lucas, you couldn't have stated that more eloquently. Many scientific documents almost use popular theory as a valid explanation when there are many substantial theories each as plausible as the next, so casually qouted by these pompous self-proclaimed experts. Just like scientific textbook definitions of the origin of the moon lists " collision-ring theory", that around the time earth was young and the solar system was conveniently full of debris, a planet size object collided with earth, thus earths gravitational influence captured this prior antithises, hence the moon in our night sky. I have often pondered the mere simplicity of this popularized rendition of the moons formation. Although these theories should be recognized, they should have no more relevance than any other till proven. It is obvious we need to change our mentality regarding our discoveries.

  124. Shatner's commentary by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

    "What does God... need... with a... space hole?"

  125. I suppose that answers THAT question. by seebs · · Score: 1

    We now know where the intelligent life was. The question is, did they leave any research notes we can carefully avoid pursuing?

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  126. Re:(Spoiler) War using JL Chalker's Zinder Nullife by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Drat, and my mod points expired. ::applause::

    (if you hadn't said it, I would've)

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  127. It's also dead wrong... by rmdyer · · Score: 1

    "You get the idea..."

    Yea, and if that's the idea, it's also dead wrong.

    You see if "space" was "compressed" the all distances of scale would also be "compressed". In compressed space, matter is just as far as it ever was from other matter. No, that is not what happened during the big bang, if the "big bang" happened at all. No, what's going on here is that more "space" is being "created" between matter as time progresses. The idea here is that space is likely being "created" by the "unwrapping", or "disolving" of matter into "space-time". You see the thing is that it's very likely to be all the same stuff. Matter is just some form of "space" that has been "reconfigured", much like ice is made of the same stuff as water. As ice melts, more space is created between the remaining ice. The problem here is that matter doesn't itself "melt" without some help. A hydrogen atom for example will probably never "melt" on its own. No, there seem to be machines that melt matter called "black holes". It is black holes that convert matter into "space-time". Matter falls into black holes, eventually only "space" is left behind.

    Cup your hands together like you are trying to hold some water. The "space" in your cupped hands can be "compressed", or "expanded" as Einstein has shown. It is elastic, and in 3D that elasticity is equal to a volume of "density". Space also seems to be quantum, or has a "granular finiteness" (google on the Beckenstein bound) to it so that you can work with it like "bits" on a computer screen. Within a volume of space, if you could manipulate it like the Star Trek replicators, then you could create any form of material or structure, just like a computer screen can produce any "picture" realizable within the frame of X and Y coordinates. We don't yet know how to manipulate space-time to create matter. Maybe someday we will. Loop quantum gravity theory seems to be a step in the right direction.

  128. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Newer question: Are you really sure we were the first mistake?"

    A loaded question: Have you stopped making mistakes?

  129. This can be explained by J-P Petit by Ummite · · Score: 1

    I don't want to talk for him, but ex director of CNRS (Jean-Pierre Petit) jp-petit.org explains that universe could be formed by two time pannels from the big bang (see his exact mathematical interpretation on his website). Each panels got opposite sign for the mass, and cannot interfer with each other, other than by gravitation. But since a negative mass would repulse positive mass, this could easilly explain the precence of such a big "nothing" (for us). This would divert light coming from behind, and we would not see this negative mass (maybe a huge galaxy). This theory also explains in part the missing matter.

  130. Misleading summary by chrisb33 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Thanks for the paper! Reading for myself, it seems that most of the articles on this paper are misrepresenting the authors' findings. What is stated in the paper is this:

    Any non-gaussianity of the WMAP cold spot therefore would then have a local origin. A 140 Mpc radius, completely empty void at z<1 is sufficient to create the magnitude and angular size of the cold spot through the late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Voids this large currently seem improbable in the concordance cosmology, adding to the anomalies associated with the CMB. They're not necessarily saying that a void exists (although they did find some supporting evidence from the NVSS survey). They're saying that a local cause for the WMAP cold spot seems to be the only reasonable explanation, but that this local cause would have to be a larger-than-predicted void.
    This is going to be a great building point for some new cosmology to come up with a consistent explanation for this. The astrophysics department at my school is really into the CMB (cosmic microwave background, mapped by WMAP) so I'm sure they'll be looking into this too.
    1. Re:Misleading summary by Randomly · · Score: 1

      Any idea where the WMAP cold spot is relative to the centre of the universe?

    2. Re:Misleading summary by chrisb33 · · Score: 1

      Well, according to modern cosmology, there ISN'T a center of the universe. A good explanation and cool little flash demonstration are here: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.h tml

      I should note that this doesn't mean the universe is infinite, as the universe can have a finite size without having a center. For an analogy, think of the surface of a sphere - it has a finite area, but no point on the surface is the "center."

    3. Re:Misleading summary by Randomly · · Score: 1

      Well that shows how outdated my astronomy is!

      Would the cold spot then seem to be a 'shadow' of something in the higher spatial dimensions from which the big bang originates?

    4. Re:Misleading summary by chrisb33 · · Score: 1

      It seems from the article that the cold spot has a non-gaussian peak, so by our usual Big Bang models it couldn't have been produced by the Big Bang itself. These researchers argue that the spot could be caused by the CMB photons traveling through a large void on the way to our telescopes, shifting the perceived temperature due to the Sachs-Wolfe effect.

  131. Re: Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A void is not a big expanse of empty space; a void is nothing at all, not even space. You probably aren't gonna grasp this without some effort.

  132. They have since identified the hole as... by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 1

    ... the disembodied soul of Leona Helmsley.

    --
    This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
  133. Nah, it's just covered by super-protecto 1MM SSPF by CodeShark · · Score: 1

    So that the local stargazer's out there don't get radiation burns from the galacticore rock concert with the zillion starts hiding behind the 1 Million power SSPF (star screen protection formula (like sunscreen, just galactic...)

    Okay, more seriously... Here we sit on a sphere 7,900 miles in diameter, deciding that from our view there is a hole in the universe where there's just nothing there -- that is billions of light years across. Okay, I'll buy that -- but because of the distances involved, exactly what is the angle of viewing from side to side on that dark spot. Well, hmmm... it takes good radio telescopes to even find it -- many years after radio telescopes were invented. On the science plus side, it can be tracked during the earth's circuit around the sun (about 186 million miles wide). So the evidence is pretty good.

    But sitting in our little corner of the universe assuming anything at AU distances is a rather nebulous form of science, don't you think? Because hey, it's space which is mostly empty, and if galaxy's are moving apart, doesn't it make sense that there have to be places everything is moving apart from. And more importantly, why should we care?

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  134. ozone layer by RahHh · · Score: 1

    Too much carbon dioxide / monoxide is destroying our ozone... now, its putting a hole in space.

    Everyone stop breathing.

  135. Flinx is on it. No worries by Bit_Squeezer · · Score: 1

    Frustrating what we cant know.

  136. home of the shadows from Babylon 5 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Nobody can live Nowhere.

  137. Answer to the Fermi Paradox? by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This void is around 450M light years wide. An advanced civilization expanding for a billion or so of years would produce this kind of void by capturing and using all radiated energy for its own use.

    --
    -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
    1. Re:Answer to the Fermi Paradox? by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder what the acceleration of surrounding galaxies looks like.

      On a universe homogeneous except for this hole, surrounding galaxies would be accelerating away, since there's more mass nearby on the side away from the hole.

      If on he other hand, there's a lot of stars darkened by civilizations (so as not to say dark matter) then the surrounding galaxies would have gravity from all directions and wouldn't be accelerating.

      Another possibility would be too look at this hole in infrared, if at all possible. Thermodynamics would imply some energy would be radiated as heat after using all he available energy. (Or would this fold into the microwave background?)

    2. Re:Answer to the Fermi Paradox? by quantaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This void is around 450M light years wide. An advanced civilization expanding for a billion or so of years would produce this kind of void by capturing and using all radiated energy for its own use. Note that we can see the other side of the hole so we're not talking about something like a giant dyson sphere. However your explanation could work if they found a way to do something like remove that region from our universe (thus leaving the hole) and make their own separate mini-universe, one with shiny walls and stuff to keep radiated energy in.
      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Answer to the Fermi Paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not talking about a single Dyson sphere (of which there isn't going to be enough mass to build anyway), he's talking about lots of little ones. Presumably you wouldn't be able to easily see those. The whole problem with that idea is the conservation of energy. An advanced civilization can capture all that energy, sure, but then it eventually has to radiate away the waste heat. Cover a bunch of stars with Dyson spheres, and all you get are a bunch of stars that blaze away thermally, instead of optically.

    4. Re:Answer to the Fermi Paradox? by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 1

      That's true, but they could also be either shutting down the stars in order to conserve fuel or have profligately burned used up all of the fuel in the void, leaving no stars to radiate.

      --
      -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
  138. homegenenity is not an assumption by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Having fractal distributions of matter can help explain several pradozes such as Olbers - a universe with a recent beginning explains that too.
    In a large fractal universe there can be large holes.

  139. Spoken just before the hole's formation: by jfw25 · · Score: 1

    "I wonder what this switch does?"

  140. The Origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps this is the origin point of the big bang...

  141. A hole? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That has a different definition to me, this looks more like just an absence of ' stuff '.

    A 'hole' to me, would make the assumption there is 'tear' and there is an 'other side' involved. I don't see either in this story. ( nor would there be much of a way to prove a hole either.. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:A hole? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      So a Swiss cheese wheel doesn't have holes inside of it? This is basically what this is.

  142. Staring into the void is a bad idea. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    You know, I heard that Reavers spent too much time staring into a void. I don't think it turned out well for them...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  143. I know what this is by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

    These scientists have just discovered the belly button of the universe.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  144. No doubt this hole caused by global warming by us7892 · · Score: 1

    First the ozone layer gets a hole, now this. Now Earthlings are responsible for a hole in the universe. Dag nabbit, we gotta get a handle on global warming, and put an end to the damage we are doing to the universe.

  145. Holes? by chaeron · · Score: 1

    Was it an Astronomically Significant Star Hole? Or maybe it was the infamous Big Universe Nonexistent Galaxy Hole? Then again, there are some scientists that prefer the Asymptotic Reality Subsystem Event Hole theory.

    Makes you think. What if god is a pointy haired manager?

    --
    .....Andrzej

    Chaeron Corporation
    1. Re:Holes? by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Really, those are very common terrestrial types. Based on secrets revealed to me by aliens, I theorize it is the only remaining cosmological Lund's Opto-Ontological Paradox Hole.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  146. Had to laugh by erikvcl · · Score: 1

    The statement from the article seems so silly to me:

    "Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size,"

    Isn't that like the old quote commonly attributed to Dan Quayle: "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure"?

    1. Re:Had to laugh by esampson · · Score: 1

      Not really. An awful lot of astronomy is done by theorizing something exists and then looking for it. This creates the very common situation of 'No one has ever found this before, but we fully expected it to be out there'.

  147. CFCs by HermDog · · Score: 1

    We're sure to find an enormous nebula of chlorofluorocarbons somewhere in the vicinity.

    --
    JADBP
  148. Pandora's Star by caller9 · · Score: 1

    Well crap, now we've found the Prime's location. We should probably get on with flying to it and unlocking them from their prison.

    (Peter F. Hamilton, Pandora's star series, What I though of when I saw dysonsphere).

  149. Humility is no longer allowed by markbt73 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you have a bunch of yahoos shouting about their imaginary friend every chance they get, and trying to force their 2000-year-old slasher novel down everyone's throats, it becomes much more difficult to use the proper qualifiers. You almost have to make assertions in that situation, so you don't get shouted down: "You don't know? HA! It must be Jeebus, then! See, you guys are all going to Hell! Jeebus, Jeebus, Jeebus..." It's wrong to state things as fact, but I can't really fault people for doing it.

    Those of us who are brave and smart enough to accept the answer of "we don't know" are in the minority. Maybe someday in the future, we can get the God-botherers to shut up long enough to make the methodology of science widely enough understood to be able to speak intelligently in public about the findings of science.

    But unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

    --
    "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
  150. An Ancient War by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    It's the result of an ancient war that destroyed entire galaxies.

    I'll have a book out about it as soon as I can find a publisher.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  151. Re:hm..Flinx? by Cragen · · Score: 1

    Geez, we have been reading Foster's Flinx books for how many years and books without a conclusion, yet? We should post a guard on his house and ask him not to touch anything sharp or walk up or down stairs! Please, universe, let him live to finish this series of books!

  152. It's a giant Spce Amoeba!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the one encountered by the USS Enterprise . I'll bet if you go inside the big hole, you'll find a glowing purple nucleus deep in the centre.

  153. it's not a giant hole by splatter · · Score: 1

    Delivered to your doorstep it's just the end of the series of tubes.

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  154. Re:So THAT is where they went! by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget a liberal's integrity.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  155. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by corifornia · · Score: 1, Funny

    Breaking news, jesus was satan.
    Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star"http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
    I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright Morning Star. (Rev 22:16). Is he admitting it?
    While divination and magic are a sin, Jesus performs "miracles" seemingly at will. Whats the difference between a Miracle and Magic?
    Second Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me
    Yet, most christian faiths worship Jesus before God. Jesus is the symbol of their faith, not the "True Creator" or "God." Wouldn't it just be a nice simple trick for the devil, whos primary role is to take souls away from God, to come to earth and trick millions of followers into following a false prophet.

    I dunno, just an idea. Think for yourself.

    --
    crap.
  156. To eliminate joke, use different theory by VernonNemitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A number of years ago the late Dr. Robert L. Forward published some notions about this Question:
    "How did the Big Bang get around the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy?"
    The suggested answer involves "negative" mass/energy, a thing which is very different from "anti-matter".
    One conclusion is that the huge voids in the Universe (there are many many more than just that big one) hold superclusters of galaxies made of negative mass/energy; it doesn't mix well with ordinary mass/energy because the two types gravitationally repel each other --and we can't see those superclusters because our eyes and current instruments don't register negative-energy photons.
    For more about negative-mass/energy theory, you might read this.

    1. Re:To eliminate joke, use different theory by Convector · · Score: 1

      Sounds like somebody just went a little crazy with the Subtle Knife.

    2. Re:To eliminate joke, use different theory by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      A number of years ago the late Dr. Robert L. Forward published some notions about this Question:
      "How did the Big Bang get around the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy?"
      Why do you think it got around them? The net sum of the mass and energy in the universe is zero, because the potential gravitational energy of a new piece of matter is negative, and the energy equivalent of the mass is positive and coincidentialy they zero out each other (They do, ok. I don't have the computations, but I did read it somewhere. A book or wikipedia, pick your poison). In other words, the Universe came out of nothing, and that's perfectly fine by the laws of physics.
      For all that we didn't have negative particles and other too complex concepts. Well, it is funnier with laws of conservation of the barionic number for example, but that's a whole other story...
    3. Re:To eliminate joke, use different theory by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The conservation of mass/energy only applies to a closed system. The Universe may be a closed system, but it may have been created inside some other system, thus being initially non-closed. An infinite universe would not need to obey the conservation of energy.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:To eliminate joke, use different theory by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      How did the Big Bang get around the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy? This question doesn't make sense. The Big Bang is about how the matter behaved extremely soon after it came into existence, not how it got here. The matter got here somehow, and then the Big Bang explains what happened next.

      Why is this distinction important? Some religious people say that matter can't just pop out of nothing, so therefore the Big Bang theory must be entirely wrong. You have no chance of convincing them that matter really can pop out of nothing. If you can keep the distinction between the arrival of matter and how the matter behaved soon after, you have a much better chance of getting a religious person to consider the Big Bang. The distinction takes away their easy answer (other than religious texts).
  157. It brought this situation to mind. . . by Zobeid · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's something very important I forgot to tell you.

    What?

    Don't cross the streams.

    Why?

    It would be bad.

    I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad?"

    Try to imagine the instant annihilation of all matter and energy within 500 million light years of here.

    Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

    1. Re:It brought this situation to mind. . . by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      "within 500 million light years of here." which means a hole 1 billion light years across. Which is the size of the hole they've found! ;)

  158. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so glad I found you.....

    Lylusay Tateros Volt Sids Lucifer!

  159. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Free will is not even a logical possibility.

    Either your actions follow from your past experiences and the genetically determined constitution of your brain.

    If they are not, they must be completely random.

    In neither case you have any free will.

  160. Dark Energy? by Gropo · · Score: 1

    Any theories suggesting that dark energy 'clumps' in the same way dark and real matter 'clump' in our imperfect fabric of space?

    --
    I hate Grammar Nazi's
    1. Re:Dark Energy? by Gropo · · Score: 1

      make that dark and *visible* not *real*... ugh

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
  161. Sense of scale by xPsi · · Score: 1

    Pictures of the void would be somewhat awkward. But the following outline might give one a sense of scale for the size of this frickin' non-thing.

    Our galaxy: about 100000 ly across
    Our Local Group of galaxies: about 10 million ly across
    The Virgo Supercluster (Local Group is in it): about 200 million ly across
    A bunch of superclusters near the Virgo Supercluster : about 1 billion ly across in picture.

    It should be noted that voids are not uncommon, but the one in the article is about 10 times wider than a typical (named) void on that last scale. In fact, it would fill the entire last picture. This is one big stretch of nothing on the trans-supercluster highway.

    --
    i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  162. What is the hole, can I get a serious answer? by corifornia · · Score: 0

    Is the hole a Flat hole, like if you cut a hole in a piece of paper or is it like a crater or a sphere? if its a flat hole, maybe its the wall at the end of the universe?

    --
    crap.
  163. I don't see a problem. by jd · · Score: 1
    The best "standard" explanation is that the gravity of surrounding objects simply ripped everything that was inside the hole out. One alternative explanation points out that superstrings would have negative gravity and therefore a large enough superstring must indeed create a void. Another notes that Black Holes eventually evaporate as Hawking Radiation and therefore if you start with a supermassive Black Hole that has eliminated all surrounding material and then evaporate it, you'll end up with nothing.

    So there are plenty of explanations. What the scientific world is waiting for is not explanations - it has plenty - but some indication of which explanation is the most likely. When scientists say they are caught off-guard, they usually do not mean that whatever it is is actually inexplicable, what they mean is that they're in the theorum shopping center and everything's on sale.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  164. It's not a hole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macrosoft declares it's not a hole, it's a feature.

  165. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by LiquidFire_HK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Huh? It's really more difficult to tell whether you have free will than whether heaven/hell exists. If you die and go to heaven or hell, you'll know they probably exist. But what evidence can there be that one has free will?

  166. Trip by Joseph1337 · · Score: 0

    Well, Bill... get packing, you have a one-way rocket to catch

  167. It's the NOTHING!!! oblig Neverending Story Quote) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look out the Nothing is on it's way! Where ever this stuff appears, nothing takes its place "Not even a hole. A hole would be SOMETHING. No, it was....NOTHING"

  168. Ya forgot to read the ending... by Lucas123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Bible isn't a slasher novel, it's a love story. It's about these kids who run away from home seeking independence and what they perceive as life's true fulfillment, and a father who desperately tries to get them to return. The father pleads with them for years to come home and enjoy the shelter and comfort of his house, but they continue to ignore him until finally the father makes a tremendous sacrifice in order to open the door for them to return. Some of the children realize the father's sacrifice and unconditional love he has for them, and come home. The others continue to wander aimlessly. The subtle, but real, plot of the story is that the father knew all along what it was going to take to be reunited with his children, but he also knew he had to let his children suffer in order for them to realize what they'd given up and the importance of the sacrifice it was going to take to save them. You should read the whole book sometime. It's amazing!

    1. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by jinxidoru · · Score: 3, Informative

      I love that the title of your comment is "Ya forgot to read the ending..." The ending of the Bible is Revelations. That's a pretty convoluted book that does more resemble a slasher novel than a love story. It makes a fitting end to the Bible.

      With your above white-wash of the book, I am honestly questioning whether you have read the entire book. I have read the entire Bible (which probably puts me into something like a 10% group). While it does have the occasional uplifting section, the Be-attitudes, for example. But the truth is that the vast majority of it revolves around people slaughtering one another in one grotesque fashion after another. That would still fit with your above description, if it weren't for the fact that it is, more-often-than-not, God commanding people to do the killing. It's not as if the killing is occurring and God is disappointed. No, he is the one either commanding the killing (think Israel's destruction of Canaan) or even himself doing it (the flood).

      You should read the whole book sometime. It's horrifying!

    2. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you missed the meaning of the entire book as many people do because you never understood it from the beginning or asked for God to reveal it to you. Your eyes were shut and you were looking at it from an intellectual perspective and not spiritual. To understand the context of the killing that the Bible contains, you have to understand God's purpose for the Jews -- the people God chose to reveal himself to the world. Their captivity in Egypt was purposeful. It was the most powerful nation on earth and the Jews were the weakest people, yet they bested Egypt through God's help. Any other nation seeing that would know it wasn't the Jews own strength that won them freedom, but God. The Canaanites were a wicked people who were attempting to destroy Israel and had been offered the same chance at redemption as the Jews, but rejected it. Read the book of Jonah. Revelation is not convoluted at all, though it is mysterious, and it speaks mainly to the churches. But read it understanding God's purpose and you'll more fully understand it's meaning. Take another look at the book and give God a chance to open your eyes.

    3. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....it's a love story......

      It's also a story of HOPE. Suicide is the final action of a person who has lost all hope. The resurrection of Jesus gives hope by faith, that death is not the end of a person's life. More effort is made to stave off death, than any other human activity. Despite all advances of modern medicine, death rate is still exactly what it has always been, 100%. Yet the promise in Jesus is that of an entirely new KIND of life, not just a continuation of the present version of life we now have. Founders of all other major faiths or philosophies lie in their graves. ONLY Jesus rose from the dead and gives that hope of a new life to those who believe in Him. The promise is not for some ethereal, spiritual, nebulous existence, but real physical life, in a real place in a real, new re-created, transcendent, fully human body. This promise and hope is ONLY for those who BELIEVE in Jesus.

      --
      All theory is gray
    4. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Of course, the old testament could also be a book of Jewish myths, with no attempt made to be historically accurate and that might be why there's a guy who married his rib in it among other bizarre mythological events.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    5. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by elton247 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So basically I would have to first decide what God's motives (his love in this case) are then read everything in that context, rather then reading the bible and then deciding what it says? Sounds a little backwards...

      --
      How strange it is to be anything at all
    6. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by vistic · · Score: 1

      I don't really care what the Bible says, or how historically accurate it is (my guess: not very). I just care about what crazy things it says that crazy people use to crazily justify their crazy actions ("I can do this because the Bible says I can, and you must do that because the Bible commands it, end of story!") in the world of today.

    7. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by SmokeyTheBalrog · · Score: 1

      Great where do I sign up? What are the monthly fees?

      What does the promise involve? Do I have to clean my room or can I just say I did?

      Where can I meet all these other people who are, right now, enjoying this "new KIND(tm) of life." (Are mutation tonics, spells, or spawn chambers involved?)

      Also, I heard a rumor that God recalled the "new KIND(tm) of life" body due to a random luminosity bug that they haven't yet been able to fix so production has been on hold.

    8. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A love story where this god character tortures his children by throwing them into pits of fire and hurting them for all eternity?

      Sounds like *your* god has a thing for BDSM, dude.

    9. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's not having the wool pulled over your eyes, that's trying to wear the sheep like a balaclava.

    10. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bible isn't a slasher novel, it's a love story. It's about these kids who run away from home seeking independence and what they perceive as life's true fulfillment, and a father who desperately tries to get them to return. The father pleads with them for years to come home and enjoy the shelter and comfort of his house, but they continue to ignore him until finally the father makes a tremendous sacrifice in order to open the door for them to return. Some of the children realize the father's sacrifice and unconditional love he has for them, and come home. The others continue to wander aimlessly. The subtle, but real, plot of the story is that the father knew all along what it was going to take to be reunited with his children, but he also knew he had to let his children suffer in order for them to realize what they'd given up and the importance of the sacrifice it was going to take to save them. You should read the whole book sometime. It's amazing!

      that's a very good, summary.

      however, i think folks who don't know so much about the bible would benefit from a few other tidbits.

      1. the bible has a lot of blood and gore b/c people are bloody and gory.

      2. yes, the father in the love story ended the lives of some clay versions of very evil people and societies, but he has not ended the potential for their eternal life, rather, he ended the misery they foisted onto themselves and those around them. literally, he put them out of their misery. he will raise them again and show them his way of happiness, peace and joy.

      3. eternal hellfire doesn't exist. the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in some eternal fire. people have bastardized a parable about being kind to the needy into the magna carta for dante's inferno because, frankly, the bible teaches something entirely different from dante's inferno. think about - a man is literally burning in fire and can hold a normal conversation and asks for a drop of water to cure his dry mouth? yeah, right! god is love and love does not (permanent) harm to his neighbor). god is not the sadist most portray him to be.

      4. this life is not the only life that eternal salvation will be offered to people. god NEVER offered the nation of ancient israel spiritual salvation. he will, one day. check out ezekiel 37 for details.

      http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible. cgi?new=1&word=ezek+37&section=0&version=niv&langu age=en

      5. there is god's way of life - care for others EQUAL (not more, not less) to oneself - and there is the spoiled clay child way of life - care for myself above others. the former leads to sustained happiness, peace and joy for the individual and the community while the latter leads to... well, look around you. then educate yourself. ~170,000,000 died in the 20th century due to the impact of war.

      it would take you 5.4 years to count that many people at 1 per second. i guess that's an average of almost 1 war related death every 20 seconds for 100 years. let me assure you that the actual death is a pittance of the misery that led to that death.

      kids starving left and right. i think 10k die every day due to starvation and illness.

      yet many, even "intellectual" types, think the world is a "good" place. the truth is they deem their world "good" and they are so self centered they don't care about anyone else's world.

      anyway, if you want to care about others equal to yourself, sponsoring a child or children is a great way to express it...

      http://cotni.org/

      they are rated 4 stars (highest rating, exceptional) by charity navigator:

      http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summ

    11. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....Great where do I sign up?......

      Read the Gospel of John first. If you still have questions read Matthew, Mark and Luke. If you REALLY believe what Jesus said, you will act upon it and ask Him the rest of the details. He WILL show you the truth.

      (.....Are mutation tonics, spells, or spawn chambers involved?.....)

      No magic, only the demonstrated power of God, which is perfect. You are an eternal spirit being, made in the image of God. God is eternal. Your (and mine) present body is like a house you live in for a while and is subject to time. In time that body will die, but you, the real, conscious, eternal person will continue forever just as God continues forever. The question to be resolved while you are here in time is: WHERE will you spend your forever? With God or cast away from His presence?

      The new kind of body God gives to those who believe is timeless, yet can also operate in time as we do today. Jesus was not subject to the limitations of space-time after He rose from the dead. He could eat, drink, communicate, be touched, in short, do all the ordinary things humans do. However, He could also appear and disappear out of this time-space dimension, much to the fright and incredulous surprise of His disciples. He left this earth, not in the roar of a rocket, but in what appeared like a cloud, he gently rose, defying gravity and entered the eternal realm which invisibly enfolds all of what we consider to be "real" and true today.

      He claimed to have come from another world He called heaven and clearly told us that in God's house are many dwelling places. So no, we are not the only intelligent beings God has made. Science can only explore within the dimensions of time-space. Yet even this exploration is giving scientists some puzzling hints that defy explanation purely in terms of the physical world and its laws. Only faith, at least for now, can take us beyond where science can go.

      --
      All theory is gray
    12. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Because if you love your children, you'll of course stone them the minute they transgress. The book is hateful and evil. Through and through. Even the new testament. You're cherry-picking if you don't see it.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    13. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by isomeme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds like *your* god has a thing for BDSM, dude.

      As a friend of mine once remarked, "Christianity is nothing but institutionalized Stockholm Syndrome."

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    14. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Founders of all other major faiths or philosophies lie in their graves. ONLY Jesus rose from the dead and gives that hope of a new life to those who believe in Him.
      You do know that "the return from the land of the dead" is one of the common elements in nearly all hero-myths? Jesus is in good company with that plot-twist, but that story has been around as long as people have been telling stories. Some other examples of mythological gods that die and return include: Persephone, Osiris, Adonis, phoenix, Baldur, Odin, and Mithras.

      Even Theseus's encounter with the Minotaur in the Labyrinth is a hero-myth where the Labyrinth is the underworld and Theseus is tasked with protecting the natural world from evil by descending and returning triumphant. Take a look at "Hero With a Thousand Faces" for more on this subject. Jesus was written into the history books after the fact.

      This promise and hope is ONLY for those who BELIEVE in Jesus.
      I've always thought that particular assertion to be very troubling. If this deity created humans flawed so that it was impossible for us to be worthy of him without further divine intervention, then it fucked up pretty badly. Badly enough that I'm not going to accept bald-faced assertions about it's intentions or plans without some evidence to back up the veracity of those assertions.

      Human beings are capable of forgiving those who do us wrong. Your deity is unwilling to accept an apology for the occasional mistake. Instead, we have to devote our lives as one gigantic apology or otherwise, it's not good enough. Which is a rather astonishing facet of the all-loving deity you claim to believe in.

      Basically, you're believing a pile of lies that you've been told since you were a child. I sincerely hope that you find your way through them and start living for joy in this life. You don't need to rely on a diety to have that (and actually, the diety gets in the way of the kind of existential joy I'm talking about).

      Regards,
      Ross
    15. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        more like horror-snuff films ;-\

        The Really, Really Big Set! Roll'em! Ok, bring in the next set of extras! Next... next...

        Sometimes the bible seems like a really, really good Jordan novel ;) ...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    16. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ......I sincerely hope that you find your way through them and start living for joy in this life.......

      I have found exactly that joy in this life and the eternal hope by direct contact with the risen Lord Jesus. It is not just some philosophically theorized existential joy, but the very real joy of having fellowship right NOW with the eternal God of all. It is the joy of knowing that my sins are ALL forgiven.

      (.....Some other examples of mythological gods that die and return .....)

      Only Jesus has ever come back in a real, physical, touchable body, not some mythical, mystical, spiritual or virtual form. He has made some real lasting positive changes in my life and in many others I personally know.

      (......I've always thought that particular assertion to be very troubling.....)

      Yes indeed, the assertions Jesus makes are VERY troubling and exclusive. He claimed to be God and it was that claim which the religious leaders of His day condemned Him for. When Jesus was about to demonstrate His power over death He spoke these words:

      Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? (John 11:25-26)

      He made at least 18 "I am" statements of similar exclusive nature. There are three choices about Jesus.

      1) Jesus was the worst and most dangerous liar the world has ever seen.
      2) He was a crazy, self deluded lunatic.
      3) He spoke the truth.

      He did not leave the option "Jesus was a good moral teacher, just as many others" open to us. Because He is both divine and fully human he could say things like that and be telling the truth. Just as today, some believed Him and others disbelieved and hated him.

      You may reject or accept the written record of the Bible just as you can any other historical writings.

      (.....Your deity is unwilling to accept an apology for the occasional mistake.....)

      Human rebellion against the rightful Government of the Universe is deep, pervasive and long standing. If you have ever told a lie you are guilty and condemned. Because of many sins, not just for an occasional mistake, we are all on death row, quarantined here on earth in space-time. One by one, the executioner, death, comes for us. One day he will come for you. There is a way out though.

      It is called forgiveness through grace, accomplished by Jesus taking the punishment you and I deserve. There is a pardon waiting for you, signed in blood IF you fulfill the conditions thereof. That's where the apology comes in. This apology involves more than an "I am sorry" but a heartfelt change of attitude toward God. It is the faith response of your inner person in agreeing with God's just sentence and accepting the free gift of the forgiveness for your sins.

      You are given the opportunity to choose life by believing Jesus or rejecting Him and thereby remaining condemned, in the prison of your own sin. Once the executioner comes to carry out the just sentence, it will be over for you, forever. Give the claims of Jesus more serious thought and consideration than anything you've ever done in your life. Jesus is asking you, just as he asked Martha about 20 centuries ago: "Do you believe this?"

      --
      All theory is gray
    17. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by jinxidoru · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did read it as a believing person. It has been a powerful tool in making me a non-believing person. What you have done is accept from the get-go that no matter what you read it will be right. From there, it really doesn't matter what you read because you have already assumed it to be good. Using this same sort of reasoning one could easily justify 9/11 and a whole host of other horrible acts throughout history.

    18. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by deltacephei · · Score: 1

      I observe that you have free reign here on slashdot to express your religious views. Your comments are not modded as flamebait and you are free to express yourself. I can't help but think that the converse of a scientist posting a comment on a Christian website, expressing himself with equal passion, would be villified, taunted and attacked. This comment is not at all intended to be an attack, nor an endorsement or slam in any way, simply an observation.

    19. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....a scientist posting a comment on a Christian website, expressing himself with equal passion, would be villified, taunted and attacked.......

      Not if they were truly Christian, following the teachings of Jesus. He said "If any man WILL...." he didn't say you MUST. I posted these things in response, not as the initiator.

      --
      All theory is gray
    20. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but he also knew he had to let his children suffer in order for them to realize what they'd given up and the importance of the sacrifice it was going to take to save them

      Tell that to the dying children in africa.

    21. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by rossifer · · Score: 1

      I have found exactly that joy in this life and the eternal hope by direct contact with the risen Lord Jesus. It is not just some philosophically theorized existential joy, but the very real joy of having fellowship right NOW with the eternal God of all. It is the joy of knowing that my sins are ALL forgiven.

      How did you come to the conclusion that my joy is theoretical?

      My joy is one of community with others, of having the opportunity to love my child, my wife, my family, etc. My joy is one of taking responsibility for my decisions, of helping others, of living in the moment, of taking the time to experience the wonders of the world within and around me.

      My joy is very real, and further, does not require belief in invisible friend(s) in the sky. Am I happy every moment of every day? No. I have a normal life with sadnesses and sometimes unpleasant duties. But I have daily opportunities to wonder at the beauty of this world along with my role in it, and I take those opportunities. I wonder at it all. I revel in my existence. That is the existential joy I refer to.

      There are three choices about Jesus.

      1) Jesus was the worst and most dangerous liar the world has ever seen.
      2) He was a crazy, self deluded lunatic.
      3) He spoke the truth.

      The choices you present are falsely limited because all three make the assumption that the documents selected to be in the Bible at the First Council of Nicea are historically accurate. However, just looking at the significant differences in the synoptic gospels, that assertion is nonsense. It's plausible that some of the events described in biblical texts are fairly decent descriptions of what actually happened, but that the whole thing is 100% accurate? Um, no.

      Once we add the possibility that biblical authors had political agendas, were two or more generations removed from the actual events of Jesus life, and therefore only got some of the details right, there are additional options that you failed to mention:

      4) A man named Jesus was born, participated in some sort of uprising, was prosecuted and killed for his crimes, and was posthumously turned into a prophet (and then deity) for the sake of a new religious movement.
      5) Jesus never existed and the whole story was made from whole cloth.
      6) ???

      Personally, my money is on (4). There's corroborating evidence that someone named Jesus existed at about the time and was killed after trial. However, I don't accept the historical accuracy of the Bible, so I don't accept that Jesus said many of the things attributed to him. It seems much more likely that the most extraordinary statements attributed to Jesus were a part of the natural evolution of the myth that appeared and grew in the 50-100 years between Jesus's actual life and when the gospels were finally actually written.

      Organized religion is a fraud built on the premise that there is power and money to be had by pretending to have the answer to unknowable questions. Near as we can tell, here are the actual answers:

      Q: "Who or what created me?"
      A: "You are a speck of organized matter in a universe that allows for organized matter like you."
      Q: "Does the universe care about me?"
      A: "Nature is not an agent. Look to the human communities around you for support, caring and love."
      Q: "What happens after we die?"
      A: "After you go, you're gone. This is it, so seek joy while you've got the chance."
      Q: "What's the meaning of life?"
      A: "That's for you to answer for yourself."

      There is room for deep and abiding joy in life with those answers, but because people want other answers, and still other people are willing to sell them the answers they want to hear (in exchange for fealty and wealth), we have organized religion.

      If you have ever told a lie you are guilty and condemned.

      Exactly the problem. Any being willing to condemn for a lie and unable to accept an apology and f

    22. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by deltacephei · · Score: 1

      "truly Christian" is subjective and ill-defined, and additionally this implies trouble for the Buddhist scientist, Hindu scientist, Muslim scientist, Native American scientist, Jewish scientist. So you have augmented my observation: only someone adhering to the subjectively defined "truly Christian" worldview would be allowed to speak freely, all others would hit a wall.

    23. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....only someone adhering to the subjectively defined "truly Christian" worldview would be allowed to speak freely, all others would hit a wall....

      Jesus claimed not only to teach truth, like the others also claim, but to be the embodiment of THE truth. Even so He said that He didn't condemn anyone, but lets everybody choose whether to believe Him. A truly Christian person could do no less, but let others consider the claims of Jesus for themselves without coercion. I personally had dialogue with other faiths, but only when asked why I am a Christian. My faith is not blind faith, but based on reason and the fact that God personally, in Jesus, communicated to me at various times throughout my life.

      Unfortunately that, just as with most other religions, has not been the case for those so called Christians that obtained political power and with that, the power to coerce others to "accept" Christianity. Our founding fathers recognized this and forbade any particular religion from obtaining the ability to use the power of government to their advantage. All faiths, regardless of majority or minority are placed on the same level. In all Moslem countries, where that religion also has full political power, other faiths, especially the Christian one are put down at minimum and severely persecuted at worst.

      --
      All theory is gray
    24. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by deltacephei · · Score: 1

      You are right: Jesus did not condemn, unfortunately many of his followers do. In absence of balance of power protections, we could end up with a system similar to that of Muslim clerics dictating political will. We see active attempts with conservative groups regarding hot button issues now. The possiblity that a non-Christian scientist would be condemned for really no other reason other than difference in faith, or lack of faith in the case of an atheist, by people who claim to be Christians (and I use the word claim intentionally because they really do not follow the teachings), is troubling.

      the embodiment of THE truth

      This is an unprovable statement. Every religion claims the same, and it is essentially a cornerstone of many religions, not just Christianity. It is an absolute statement and while it may be part of the Christian belief system, it is as well part of the belief systems of many others that do not follow Christianity and have no wish to. This is where your statement regarding separation of church and state matters. Because each may claim truth, each tends to see their system as superior and all others inferior.

    25. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by FluxIntegrator · · Score: 1

      It's a story of hope that every other religion will no longer exist. It's a story of hope that armagedon will come and kill billions of people. It's a story of hope that you will die, because that would reunite you with your maker. It's a story of hope that you can "save" people from going to "hell", but billions of people are going to go there no matter what you do because they can't be "saved". If *that* is hope then you've got some serious issues. Besides the fact that you don't have a shread of evidence. Evidence and proof are the foundation of this site. What you are posting is basically nonsense and your beliefs. This is not the appropriate place for this kind of discussion. Take your opinions back to church where they belong.

    26. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      It's noteworthy that you compare mythological characters with someone who actually lived and performed thousands of miracles that were witnessed by as many people. In fact, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, was not a Christian but documented early Christianity and Jesus' miracles quite extensively. This "existential" life that you speak of, what is that exactly -- especially considering the term "existential" finds its roots in self-absorbed practices, such as psychotherapy, and deeply disturbed people like Nietzsche. I'm guessing you mean to discover life's pleasures on your own, or something like that. God does not want us to look inwardly for answers, but to look to him. He requires us to serve others and bless them, not serve our own selfish desires. You'll never find happiness in that -- not matter how much money or fame you gain. It's not complicated. It's as simple as this, John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The bible tells us that darkness will not understand Christ. John 1:3-5: "In him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." The Bible also reminds us that unbelievers will consider belief in Christ foolish: 1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Just because you've never experienced God's touch in your life, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. It just means that you've not really sought Him out. His promise to you is that if you seek Him, you will find him. To people who've experienced Jesus in their lives, your attempts to discredit Him through intellectualism remain meaningless. But the door is always open for you to step through -- to find true fulfillment through your maker. All you have to do is ask with a sincere heart.

    27. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      .......Besides the fact that you don't have a shread of evidence. Evidence and proof are the foundation of this site.........

      I suppose that depends on whether you consider historical evidence written down by eyewitnesses worthless. The writings of the New Testament are every bit as historical and trustworthy as other historians of that time. Oral and written testimony of witnesses is accepted in our courts of law. It is generally assumed in a court that a witness is telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent on the opposing party, defense or prosecution, to cast doubt and discredit the evidence of testimony or credibility of the witnesses.

      Simon Greenleaf, a founder of the Harvard Law School, wrote at length on rules of evidence and how an attorney may undermine or bolster the truthfulness of witnesses and their testimony. These rules and procedures are still followed in all law courts from the Supreme Court down. He, as an atheist lawyer, determined to show by those rules, that the testimony of the four writers of the Gospels was untrue and that they were not credible eye witnesses of what they claim. He did come to the opposite conclusion after careful study of the written depositions these four witnesses left behind. He became a Christian as a result.

      There are many OPINIONS expressed here on /. on almost any subject. Whenever the subject of origins comes up, most here express the opinions of materialistic evolution. Since science can only deal with the material world of matter-energy, the assumption (belief) is made that there isn't anything else that goes beyond that. For most of human history, and in fact, still today, most humans STILL believe that the dimensions of time-space and matter-energy are not all that exists. Those here on /. who DO believe that there is nothing beyond the physical are more numerous only here, but are a tiny minority of the human race, now and all through history.

      If I speak out on behalf of the overwhelming majority of humanity, that doesn't mean I have to leave reason behind and forego science and technology as discussed here.

      --
      All theory is gray
    28. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ......The possiblity that a non-Christian scientist would be condemned for really no other reason other than difference in faith.....

      The fact is that scientists are human. A such, like every human, have a certain world view. There is no way that their world view (belief system) cannot help but formulate the underlying assumptions made in their discipline.

      The currently popular evolutionary world view doesn't allow for the possibility of any reality beyond the matter-energy-time-space (physical) domain which science can explore. Because of this world view constraint, everything must be explained only by physical interactions. Evolution is a system based on descent through time. More complex life descended from simpler forms. Mechanisms of survival and mutation, coupled with huge amounts of time are the drivers of evolution. This logical and irrefutable, given the acceptance (belief in) of this underlying world view.

      Christians and others have the world view that there is an intelligent, God, who is the originator and controller of everything. This includes the time-space-matter-energy dimensions studied by science. In this view, the evidence points to a common set of laws, principles, systems and re-useable designs that operate consistently in all living things, as well as the rest of creation. These were all put in place and are sustained by a designer who exists outside of this fishbowl we call the universe. This too is logical and irrefutable, given the acceptance (belief in) of this underlying world view.

      --
      All theory is gray
    29. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by rossifer · · Score: 1

      It's noteworthy that you compare mythological characters with someone who actually lived and performed thousands of miracles that were witnessed by as many people.
      Sadly, it's not really noteworthy that you do not think critically about what you find written in the Bible.

      In fact, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, was not a Christian but documented early Christianity and Jesus' miracles quite extensively.
      In actual fact, Josephus's writings are far from conclusive. In 240AD, Origen stated that in 70AD, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, while in 324AD, Eusebius quoted a transcription of Josephus in "The Antiquities" where Josephus is claimed to have stated that "Jesus was the Christ". Since none of Josephus's writings survive, but only multiply transcribed copies, it's likely that someone added Josephus's mention of Jesus's miracles and divinity well after the fact.

      I'm guessing you mean to discover life's pleasures on your own, or something like that.
      Pretty close. You can see my earlier response for a description of my joy in living.

      God does not want us to look inwardly for answers, but to look to him.
      On what basis do you believe that your God exists? Why do you deny the existence of all of the other possible mythical gods? Once you understand why you don't believe in any of the other religions, realize that all I have done is extended that disbelief to your religion as well.

      Just because you've never experienced God's touch in your life, doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
      Again, with the assumptions! :) When I was 16, I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. This was a major positive event in my life, which helped me deal with some very difficult family issues at the time. Eight years later, when I was 24, after several years of unsatisfactory answers to my questions about evolution, sin, forgiveness, etc., I decided that although religion had been helpful to me, it wasn't the Jesus/salvation part of it that was useful (it was the presentation of a pragmatic moral system). So, I de-converted from Christianity. I had a "final prayer", where I observed that even Thomas got the proof he needed to believe, so I would wait for my proof. I also got to work on figuring out why I still believed in "right" and "wrong", even without God looking over my shoulder, which has turned out to be an extraordinarily interesting journey...

      Please understand, I'm not trying to de-convert you. The world will be a better place because others know and understand things differently from me. But I do object strongly to the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity in the politics of the US. The founder's weren't especially religious people, and deliberately founded the US as a non-religious nation. The work of modern religious leaders to influence decision-making in Washington DC and around the country in States, Counties, and School Boards is an ongoing disaster that I will work against with every fiber of my being.

      Organized religion, including Christianity, is currently the biggest impediment to moral progress on this planet. Medicine can now keep someone alive long after the "person" is gone. Should we keep them alive? Religions offer no help with this question. Only the reconciled knowledge of the communities around that person can actually answer the question. Medicine has now caused starvation by overpopulation to become the leading cause of death around the world. What does Christianity offer for guidance to solve the underlying issues? Nothing. Worse than nothing, Christianity interferes with efforts to education teens about sex and to provide effective birth control. Christians protest outside the doors of companies that distribute condoms in regions with high HIV and massive overpopulation. Even in this country, what's the best way to prevent teen pregnancy? Teaching abstinence or teaching the facts about sex and reproduction? The studies are in, abstinence teaching doesn't help, but Christian leaders still have their heads in the sand.
    30. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      You can always find someone who, factually or not -- hundreds of years after the fact, or not -- will contradict the historical truth. I'm not concerned with that. That's expected. It was even happening in the time right after Christ's crucifiction. The apostle Paul wrote about it. I don't base my belief in God on my critical thinking. The bible warns against that. "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20). I base my belief in God on faith, and faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1). God has shown me time and again that He is there for me. That doesn't mean that I won't experience trouble. I have gone through some very difficult times, things you would likely describe as tragedies, but God's Holy Spirit has been there to strengthen, comfort and guide me. Jesus made it clear that we would have troubles. "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33). Jesus was explaining that we need to be eternally minded, not temporally minded. I could offer you scripture after scripture of Jesus illustrating how we are to respond to trouble -- remember the disciples in the boat during the storm? Even the disciples had to learn about faith -- it's not always easy, you know :) I also don't take responsibility for what other Christians do. If God leads me to, I'll correct another Christian. As for me, the Bible is clear. I am to spread the gospel, the good news of Christ's salvation for the world. That's it. If someone doesn't accept that, then I pray for them, but it's the Holy Spirit's job to soften their hearts, not mine. The Pharisees once asked Jesus for miracles as proof that he was the Messiah. He told them the only sign they would receive is the sign on Jonah -- that he would be buried for three days and then rise again. When Christ was on the cross, the chief priests and teachers of the law mocked Jesus and told him to save himself as proof that he was God. He didn't. His purpose wasn't to impress the local religious leaders. Thomas asked Jesus for permission to touch His hands as proof he was the Christ. Jesus said then said to him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29). You say you once had a relationship with Jesus, but walked away from it based on a lack of tangible evidence. The only miracle you needed or need is Christ's salvation. In Christ's time, even with miracles being performed, most refused to believe. I expect nothing less than that today. If you once believed, you're still called. "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." (John 15:16). Talk to your Father; he's waiting to hear from you :)

    31. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by FluxIntegrator · · Score: 1

      I suppose that depends on whether you consider historical evidence written down by eyewitnesses worthless.>

      It has to be taken within the appropriate historical context. You're doing the equivalent of what future observers might do, such as taking a TV program of today and turning it into fact. We can barely understand the religious irrationality of much culture the Middle East even today. Multiply that by about 50 times, and put that in the context of the politics 2000 years ago. Learn the language, or simply listen to the language. Most of the languages of the time were poetic. They repeat things 3 times frequently. They have traditions embedded into their language. Not just phrases, but entire paragraphs. Lying is frequently used when commanded to do so by an elder. I know this first hand, and personally, as my father grew up in nearly Biblical conditions in the Middle East. Language was a means of handing down traditions, and many of the books in (what we now call) the "Bible" were simply a way of handing down tradition, regarding the natural universe. "God" gets angry when... "God" will bless you when... "God" commands you to... Etc...

      Oral and written testimony of witnesses is accepted in our courts of law. It is generally assumed in a court that a witness is telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent on the opposing party, defense or prosecution, to cast doubt and discredit the evidence of testimony or credibility of the witnesses.

      You should know better than this. (Actually, I'm sure you do know better than this, you're just lying to promote your religion.) Let me set the record straight. *Everybody* knows the Burden of Proof is on the person making the *claim*. The person making the *claim*, in the case of a murder, is the "opposing party" (which is why they are called "opposing"). Thus, the opposing party must provide "proof". You make *numerous* claims, and thus, you have a lot you need to prove.

      Simon Greenleaf, a founder of the Harvard Law School, wrote at length on rules of evidence and how an attorney may undermine or bolster the truthfulness of witnesses and their testimony. ...He did come to the opposite conclusion after careful study of the written depositions these four witnesses left behind. He became a Christian as a result.

      Simon Greenlead died in 1853! And that's the best you can do? Maybe that should tell you something? Furthermore, it's doubtful he because a Christian as a result of reading the Gospels. What you are quoting is almost legend. I can tell quite well it's been manufactured by examining the "evidence" myself. In fact, I think that's the whole point of that excercise. Once again, another lie coming from you. But, that's not a surprise, as you are religious, and religious people have to do that all the time.

      There are many OPINIONS expressed here on /. on almost any subject. Whenever the subject of origins comes up, most here express the opinions of materialistic evolution.

      Evolution is not an opinion, it's a rigorously tested scientific theory. The words "scientific theory" means that at least the general premises would qualify as what most people would call "fact". Theories must make predictions. And evolution has made *many* predictions that have been verfied.

      ...most humans STILL believe that the dimensions of time-space and matter-energy are not all that exists.

      Most young American childern also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Does that make them real? Cultural "memes" spread like viruses, literally (numerous sociological studies have shown this). So the fact that a large number of people are doing a particular thing, or believing a particular thing, does *not* necessarily imply that it is justified or correct. How do you then determine if

    32. Re:Ya forgot to read the ending... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ......So, basically, you're sick and so are *billions* of other people on Earth........

      Of course you are healthy because you BELIEFS are true. You belong to the "enlightened" minority who has the truth based on YOUR beliefs.

      (.....Simon Greenlead died in 1853!.....)

      I wonder how many people will still be even looking at, let alone avidly studying anything you leave behind 154 years after your death. If you go to law school, you will be required to study that man's writings.

      (.....*Everybody* knows the Burden of Proof is on the person making the *claim*.......)

      Jesus did provide plenty of evidence that His claims were valid. The writers were merely eye witnesses to what happened. When you are called into court as a WITNESS, you don't have to and are never asked to prove anything. You are merely asked to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. It is assumed then, that you, like every witness, is truthful. It is up to the opposition to convince the judge or jury that the witness is a liar or deceived.

      (......Evolution is not an opinion, it's a rigorously tested scientific theory.......)

      Evolution theory, like every other theory is ultimately based on certain assumptions. (faith, axioms) Evolution depends on time, lots of time and our accurate measurement thereof, into the distant past. Anytime you want to measure anything, you have to be sure the measuring device is correct while measuring. There is NO way anyone can KNOW if the clocks used to measure the immense periods of time have run at the same rate throughout all that time. It is assumed (believed) they did. So, ultimately, evolution is based on a belief which cannot be checked scientifically. In that, it is in the same category as any religion, which cannot be checked either.

      --
      All theory is gray
  169. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

    There is nothing inherently contradictory about the notion of free will. There is something inherently contradictory between the notion of free will and the notion that all truth is empirically discoverable.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  170. Q.E.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations At last! Proof of the existence of God:/dev/null
  171. True Vacuum by einsteindotcubed · · Score: 1

    So, this is pretty much a very big "true" vacuum, devoid of everything except e/m radiation. If this discovery is real, then does quantum foam (you know, the random creation and annihilation of particle-anti particle pairs) still exist in the vacuum, thus making it no longer a true vacuum? Or is it really, truly, and absolutely (other than e/m radiation), empty?

    --
    I do know everything, just not all at once. It's a virtual memory problem.
  172. "Impossible"? How do you know "impossible"? by danaris · · Score: 1

    I know a hole like this cannot possibly be ...possible

    Pardon me, but you're full of it.

    I'm not an astrophysicist, or anything fancy like that (though I know some), but I do know this:

    The best and brightest minds on Earth cannot say with certainty that something like this is "impossible" under the laws of physics, because all we've got is a highly imperfect model.

    Refining that model is what science is all about. But we just haven't been able to study enough of the Universe in detail to be able to say what can't be out there.

    Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something, whether it be ego or product.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  173. A hole ...? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Rupture or intrusion, empty noway, what's there, unknown, it ain't random, gap, opening, disruption, discontinued, why ...?

    Under SciFic-Physics:
    What if, our "Universal" Domain (we live in, is not everything) has a physics with dimensions (within our TS place) probably unique to all other "Unique" Domains (many external universes) all with their own U-Branes.

    REMEBER: THIS IS SciFic-Physics (treat accordingly) - Domains have Gravity and the Field between Domains has Levity. Where/when two Domain U-Branes meet, the Domains' Internal Gravitational and External Field Levitational Forces will increase in opposition until the field force breaks the Two Domain U-Branes/gravity bond. The resultant release of energy could cause the birth of another novel Domain. Universal Domains will continue to expand (exceeding initial energy input from Levity field) until the gravitational bond in the Domain is dissipated back into the Levity Field. The big-bang Newton cosmic egg would be a unique physics domain at the making singularity. If Torus and Omega domains/physics had U-branes meet, the result would probably never produce a domain identical to the Einstein or Bohr Domain physics. There would from the singularity meeting point emerge the new Newton/Infinity domain physics.

    SciFic Physics: Einstein/Torus's hook-up with Bohr/Omega results in Nativity of Newton/Infinity.
    __ Einstein/Torus Domain: alaxy, tar, and lanet Systems (a Phi physics)
    __ Bohr/Omega Domain: alaxy, tar, and lanet Systems (an Omega physics)
    __ Newton/Infinity Domain: alaxy, tar, and lanet Systems (the Infinity physics)

    NO, I dont' have the math ... a little green feller (maybe a gal) told me all about U-Branes |%~O) while visiting Area 6665169 in Russia.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  174. We Apologize For the Inconvenience by bhav2007 · · Score: 1

    --Douglas Adams

  175. That's IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They found my wife's heart! I've been looking for that.

    -yeah I'm posting anonymously...you would too.

  176. Not normal by noidentity · · Score: 1

    "Astronomers are surprised by a recent discovery of a space hole [...] What we've found is not normal"

    It's not a tumor!

  177. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to elaborate on what you just said? I don't see which part of GP's argument that had anything to do with empirical truths. Or is the logic faulty in some other way?

  178. it's called a space desert by kaldari · · Score: 1

    It's a "space desert", not a "space hole"! Don't you guys watch Star Trek (that's a rhetorical question).

  179. Re:(Spoiler) War using JL Chalker's Zinder Nullife by MarkAyen · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's the first thing I thought of too. "News for Nerds", indeed.

  180. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by magarity · · Score: 1

    Whats the difference between a Miracle and Magic?
     
    What's the difference between magic and any sufficiently advanced technology? I submit Jesus was from the 29th century and thrown back in time after a plasma bubble in his antimater flux capacitor created a rift in the subspace matrix.... oh, wait, no, I've just watched too many Voyager reruns.

  181. False vacuum? by Omnivorax · · Score: 1

    Could it be that we're in a false vacuum, and a billion years ago a civilization 6-10 billion light years away found a way to trigger a vacuum metastability event?

  182. Halo 3 Viral Marketing by stmfreak · · Score: 1

    Obviously, it's supposed to be the remnant of a Forerunner Halo ring weapon detonation. It's amazing what lengths MSFT PR will go to in publishing a video game. I'm not sure whether we should be outraged that they did it only five billion light years away or glad they discovered time travel so we could observe the effect in time for this year's product launch.

    --
    These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
  183. the actual range of the history eraser button by tadauphoenix · · Score: 1

    Here we see the area of effect...

  184. That truth has already been discovered by OricAtmos48K · · Score: 1

    That huge hole is near Uranus !

  185. Watch Out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reevers.

  186. I for one by manifoldronin · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new overlords of... void?

    --
    Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
  187. Recent Data suggest universe not infinite. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    I'm too lazy to bring up the /. story, but data suggests the universe is a hyper polyhedral shape rather than a flat plane, and entering one of the "sides" as a 3 dimensional being would simply spit you out the opposite end at a 30 degree or so offset.

    anyone with more time on their hands than me want to fish that up?

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  188. I must be reading these quotes wrong? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1
    The quotes didn't seem to adequately answer this to me.

    Any mass which is situated in the range between the upper border distance R0 and must overcome a very weak repulsion force, if it wants to approach the source of field. Since this effect occurs only for very large distances, it is practically not observable.


    If this is true, then logic follows there would be no net gain of energy of phontons passing through matter as it would be lost on the way toward it, then regained from the repulsive force traveling away from it.

    Additionally, it would force us to rethink the layout of the entire universe, as photons approaching from vast distance at an angle would be deflected in the same way a glancing snooker impact would deflect a ball.

    Finally Heim found that cosmic red shift too is a result of the corrected gravitation law. Therefore each particle of this world must approach primarily against the repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world. (This corresponds to the field curve between and R0.) This is using energy whereby each photon becomes longer in it's wavelength during this journey.


    And if this is true we must be seeing everything in a slight red shift since the photons must approach our galaxy (in the case of extragalactic sources) or our planet (in the case of extraplanetary sources.

    While i'm not familiar with the theory, these quotes don't seem to logically explain what is reported here. The quoted behaviors would cause general distortion equally applicable to all observations.
    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  189. Re:"Impossible"? How do you know "impossible"? by Kagura · · Score: 1

    The supplied picture is what I'm saying seems nearly impossible, not the text story. I strongly feel that it is simply an artist's rendition of what it may look like, however I cannot find anything that says it is. The image looks entirely unnatural in origin, considering the extreme scale and homogeneity of the entire image except for a gaping hole. I have an amateur yet strong interest in cosmology, so I cannot speak with the background of a scientist, but I am sometimes able to recognize what is likely a true image or not.

    Once more, I have come to believe the picture is an artist's rendition, not a computationally rendered map of the hole, although nowhere does it explicitly state that it is only an artist's rendition. Since there is a different between the TIFF and the medium-quality JPG, I believe that an artist saved the TIFF and then continued editing and then saved the medium-quality JPG. Any thoughts? It's genuinely disturbing if the image of the hole is, indeed, an actual map and not an artist's photoshopping.

  190. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

    Well, the OP claimed that actions being a product of genetics + environment, or else purely random, is only a legitimate dichotomy if the existence of the supernatural is excluded. If all truth were empirically discoverable, then the supernatural is excluded. Since the position that all truth is empirically discoverable is a quite common position, I made the assumption that that was the OP's position, and based my comment on that assumption.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  191. Misliks by ppanon · · Score: 1

    It's the Misliks' work.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  192. Thumb over camera lens by rapidweather · · Score: 1

    That's it, a thumb was over the camera lens. Has to be. There are stars and galaxies everywhere in space, we have been told that since the 4th grade.
    You get a blank spot when your thumb is over the camera lens. Nothing to worry about, nothing changes. We get hot weather, cold weather, rain, etc. and this discovery will lead to nothing, no changes whatsoever.
    Remove the thumb and take another picture, then you will see all the stars and galaxies that have to be there.

    (Friday Evening Joke)
    -- Rapidweather

  193. Re:"Impossible"? How do you know "impossible"? by danaris · · Score: 1

    Ah, OK. I misunderstood. My apologies.

    Yeah, I don't know what sorts of computer models they make out of whatever data they gather, so I have no idea if this is an artist's rendition or something more "real" either...

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  194. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    Because of some nice sounding sentences? No, because it politely lists the answers to the questions. Christianity is a very mature religion -- there is at least one answer to any question you have to pose to it.

    How do you know this? Because some self-referential book told you? I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with religion but rather all the unsubstantiated assumptions that must be made in order to make this statement true or insightful. I count at least 5. There's only one, my friend. "The Christian God is real." Either the priests are right -- and thus their theology is accurate enough to satisfy the aforementioned Deity -- or they are wrong, and the whole religion is just a wild guess.

    No Christian I know claims truth due to mere biblical reference. They proclaim belief in the Christian God, either by inherited teaching ("Mommy told me so") or by special relevation ("I met an Angel!" "I had a vision!" "I felt His Presence!")
  195. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be one of them charged vacuum emboitments, what keeps the universe from decaying in to total entropy. You've got to watch those.

  196. Ah by Godji · · Score: 1

    So that's where all that taxpayer money goes!

  197. big hole in universe? by bayman55 · · Score: 1

    Maybe it is not a blank area at all. Maybe it is something between us and that part of the universe. Heading our way? Hmmmmmmm.

  198. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey God... I mean human... Where do you people come from? You have answers for everything. You don't know!!! Wow!!! There are egotistical morons in this world!!!

  199. See what happens when you put a by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Portable Hole into a Bag of Holding?

    I told them, but they wouldn't listen.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  200. Oh my god... by SunnySideLeft · · Score: 1

    ...it's full of socks!

  201. Re:And all of a sudden....Free Will. by Enlightenment · · Score: 1

    You do not have free will.

  202. cheap OEM knockoff universe by BrainStain · · Score: 1

    factory forgot to set BIOS memory hole remapping. unfortunately we'll have to reboot to fix it.

  203. Tada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you should all pat yourselves on the back for being so smart!

  204. Point Hubble at the hole... by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

    ...and do a deep, long exposure of this area.

  205. I just found one too by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    in your momma!

  206. Hole In The Sky by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
    link

    courtesy Black Sabbath, ca. 1975

    Im looking through a hole in the sky
    Im seeing nowhere through the eyes of a lie
    Im getting closer to the end of the line
    Im living easy where the sun doesnt shine

    Im living in a room without any view
    Im living free because the rents never due
    The synonyms of all the things that Ive said
    Are just the riddles that are built in my head

    Hole in the sky, take me to heaven
    Window in time, through it I fly

    Ive seen the stars disappear in the sun
    The shootings easy if youve got the right gun
    And even though Im sitting waiting for mars
    I dont believe theres any future in cause

    Hole in the sky, take me to heaven
    Window in time, through it I fly
    Yeah

    Ive watched the dogs of war enjoying their feast
    Ive seen the western world go down in the east
    The food of love became the greed of our time
    But now Im living on the profits of pride

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  207. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by IngramJames · · Score: 1

    There's only one, my friend. "The Christian God is real."

    There is a question I would like answered, but googling for "God exists Bible" doesn't give me a very narrow resultset, I'm afraid.

    So: Does the Bible state that the Yahweh is the *only* god? The (modern) translated text of the Commandments says: "Worship no god but me.. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your God and I tolerate no rivals"

    Which suggests to me that, though there ARE other gods, they should not be seen as more important than Yahweh. Does the Bible actually state anywhere that there are no other gods, or just that they shouldn't be worshipped over Yahweh?

    --
    'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
  208. Could it be... by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    Could it be that their is a giant space amoeba at the center?

    Come on, I can't be the only person who had that as their first thought.

    I for one welcome our new dark space dwelling, single-celled overlords.

  209. A WHOLE LOTTA ... NOTHING? by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    LOOK. I'VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, NOTHING DOES NOT EXIST.
    Then how come we are talking about it now - at least as a concept?
    I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. NOTHING DOES NOT EXIST.
    Oh yaa? Well, they just found a load of parsecs full of a QUOTE a "space hole" and there's nothing you can do about it.
    WHAT? A HOLE FILLED WITH ... NOTHING?
    As they usually are. Like a double negative. Get your pea brain around that and don't moan at me about it. Moan at /.
    RR

  210. Re:A WHOLE LOTTA ... NOTHING? Mod me up fir it. by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    Go on! MOD ME UP FOR NOTHING!
    Face it!
    It wouldn't be the first time on /.
    RR

  211. Heaven - 1 entry found by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Huh? It's really more difficult to tell whether you have free will than whether heaven/hell exists

    Well, it used to be debated whether we can find heaven and hell, but now that this large void has been found -- it has to be heaven, as in the sinners of history never stood a chance.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  212. Looking for a Reason to Believe by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    My bet for what can cause such a void is a set of slow moving black holes spiraling like a big drill. Wouldn't try this at home...

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  213. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by LittleDobbs · · Score: 1

    So: Does the Bible state that the Yahweh is the *only* god? The (modern) translated text of the Commandments says: "Worship no god but me.. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your God and I tolerate no rivals"

    Which suggests to me that, though there ARE other gods, they should not be seen as more important than Yahweh. Does the Bible actually state anywhere that there are no other gods, or just that they shouldn't be worshipped over Yahweh?

    Far be it for me tho place God's words in my mouth. I believe that the reference was to other "false" gods. At the time every tribe or nation had their own god(s). The believe was that if one nation overthrew another that in fact that nation's god(s) had beaten the other. These people would have been exposed to the Egyptian gods and would be entering a land that would contain several other gods including the Assyrian's and Babylonian's. So from the perspective of those people at that time there would have been other gods. I think one has to take the context of when and to whom something was written before applying any hermeneutic. Basically you are right the bible states that Yahweh is the only God and that the others are false.

  214. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by hedrick · · Score: 1

    I'm one of the people who don't think God's existence can be proven, but if you want to see a good collection of the standard proofs, take a look at http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent =/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.h tml

    This is from Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher.

    In certain early accounts from the Old Testament, you can see God as the God who had chosen them, but not necessarily the only one. However during most of the period covered by the OT, and all of the New Testament, God is considered one.

    Deut 6:4 Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 7 6:5 You must love 8 the Lord your God with your whole mind, 9 your whole being, 10 and all your strength. 11

    Argue over interpretation if you like, but from writings of prophets and others it is clear that this passage was interpreted as saying that there is only one God. Gods worshipped by others were considered either delusions or false gods.

  215. Sgt Schultz says "I see natinkkk!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >The hole is nearly a billion light-years across

    We just chose not to see it.

  216. Re:And all of a sudden....Dust mites. by IngramJames · · Score: 1

    I'm one of the people who don't think God's existence can be proven

    Me too, only moreso :)

    Thanks for the link, I did give it a quick scan, but stopped at about the third logical fallacy I found - near the top, in other words :)

    Thanks also for the Deuteronomy reference.. heh, I can argue over interpretation with the best of 'em, and the English translation doesn't (to me) preclude the existence of other gods (I googled for some alternate translations as well). I'd be interested to know what the original said, but alas I don't read any other languages (let alone ancient ones).

    If anyone can recommend a good book on this subject, I'd be fascinated; the evolution of religion is a subject I enjoy exploring.

    --
    'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
  217. unnatural ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be evidence of an hemogenising swarm

  218. So. That's where they get the credit to plug ... by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    So.
    That's where the Federal (NOT!) Reserve (NONE!) System
    gets the imaginary 'credit' to plug the SUB-CRIME shortfall!
    Voodoo econmics explained!
    RR

  219. Re:(Spoiler) War using JL Chalker's Zinder Nullife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The inspiration for the "hypometric weapons" in Alastair Reynolds's Absolution Gap maybe?