Dark Energy

The occult force of cosmic disintegration accounts for roughly 70% of everything that is strongly suspected to exist. Breaking things up pleases Gnon at least twice as much as holding them together. The party of unity has a steep slope to climb.


(Nova does dark energy.)

September 26, 2016admin 32 Comments »


32 Responses to this entry

  • Dark Reformation Says:

    See page 44-45 of Nick Bostrom’s (edited) Global Catastrophic Risks.

    The Gloaming comes, and then The Nothing.


    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Halford Mackinder Says:

    No one has ever satisfactorily explained to me how if, if epicycles were wrong because based on the need for theoretical consistency in the face of unforeseen observations, “dark matter” can be right. Both are the result of the physicists being blatantly wrong (i.e., their predictions did not match their observations), and instead of revising their theory/hypotheses, they postulate the existence of something they have no proof for just to make the equations balance. If epicycles are a big joke to the scientific community, why is dark matter taken so seriously when there exists just as much basis for epicycles as there does for dark matter, namely, none?


    Herbert Zed Oinlein Reply:

    Because not all physicists are autistic. In fact, despite a higher prevalence of autism among physicists, the majority is expectedly neurotypical. The physics community is focused on social games first, and physics second.


    Orthodox Reply:

    People who believed in epicycles are dead, but people who believe in dark matter are alive. And alive people are the smartest people always. Stupid ideas are from the past my friend, not the enlightened progressive present.


    William Newman Reply:

    Eyeballing it from outside (as someone who got a Ph. D. in computer simulations of physics equations, but for QM equations in chemistry problems, not for classical mechanics in celestial problems) it looks to me as though epicycles were a joke because the planetary motion data were sharp enough to make people conclude that an implausibly complicated large number of epicyclic corrections would be needed to fit existing measurements. (And then they probably expected, correctly as we know now, that you’d need to tack on more complication to fit the measurements in upcoming decades.) As far as I know the data on galactic stability and such are still much fuzzier than that, so that so far they only call for a few broad corrections consistent with a pretty simple distribution of unseen mass. That doesn’t make the hidden mass idea correct, but it could make it much more palatable than the multiple epicycles idea was.

    For the motions of planets in the solar system, we had very sharp angular data on their motion through large angles (indeed often through many cycles) of their orbital trajectories around the Sun, which put very tight constraints on explanations, so that the epicyclic complexity could multiply fast. For our observations of motion of distant stars and galaxies, we have much much bigger error bars on key parameters like their relative positions and on their velocities. Sharp measurements tend to be much more brutal against ambiguous or ad hoc theories than fuzzy measurements are. (Consider famous things like Michaelson-Morley experiment, photoelectric effect, Pasteur flask, or just the careful weighing that caused problems for phlogiston; see also VC dimension below.) For objects too distant to resolve without a telescope, moving on a timescale which is large compared to the history of telescopy, we naturally tend to be stuck with frustratingly fuzzy measurements of key parameters like angular motion and inferred distance.

    Note also that physics and astronomy don’t just have the two historical examples of epicycles and dark matter to consider when trying to decide what lessons about valid inference to draw from history. Two other famous examples are the prediction of Neptune to explain anomalies in the orbit of Uranus, and long confusion about the precession of the orbit of Mercury which was resolved by — roughly speaking — the leading term missing in the classical equations of motion compared to the relativistic equations of motion. Both of those cases are quite a lot like patching up an old theory by adding a few terms, and both are considered successes, very reasonably IMHO. (Admitedly, the Neptune case was more complicated than the tale which is sometimes told, and admittedly to people who deal with highly relativistic situations like black holes or particle accelerators, the upgrade from classical mechanics to relativistic mechanics is not like just adding a small correction term. But to people doing practical problems of celestial mechanics in the solar system, the speeds are so low compared to the speed of light that a small correction tends to do the job, indeed does the job so well that AFAIK it is usually most practical to think of the problem as Newtonian with a very small correction added as a sort of afterthought.)

    Note *also* that if you want to think seriously about ad-hoc-ness and overfitting and unfalsifiability and so forth, in the last few decades a lot of work has been done and a lot of progress has been made on systematizing inferential reasoning for AI and related automated calculations. Thus, a lot of useful systematic quantitative treatment of issues like overfitting and Occam’s Razor had to be developed, and is out there if you are numerate and motivated. The researchers still cite back to Popper’s qualitative ideas of falsifiability (and for some inexplicable reason seem to skip over the windy Marxists who in the innumerate philosophical establishment seem to be considered the ever-so-important legitimate follow-on to Popper:-), but unlike the original Popper, the work is now practical and general enough to apply to confidence levels of conclusions from masses of uncertain experimental data, not just to simple-minded pure true-false reasoning about artificially perfect experimental data. I like Vapnik’s _The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory_ (from 2000). In his terms, my hand-waving above about how sharp data tend to brutalize ad hoc theories can be thought of as a qualitative remark about quantitative measures such as Vapnik-Chernovenkis dimension.


    frank Reply:

    Good post.


    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 2:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Gnonophobic Says:

    Do dark matter and dark energy really exist, or are they just some kind of modern-day aether whose only purpose is to fill a gap of knowledge in the absence of a more refined and elegant theory akin to Relativity?


    Aristocles Invictvs Reply:



    Seth Largo Reply:

    You can continue to pose sophomoric questions or you can go pop a physics book and learn something.


    Herbert Zed Oinlein Reply:

    It’s a cool name for a fudge variable. They could have just as well called dark matter pixie dust and dark energy pixie rays, but most physicists read a lot more Asimov than fairy tales. “Physics books” won’t help you with anything on this particular front. “Occult” force seems quite fitting.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Dark matter exists. In the bullet cluster, a colliding galaxy pair, it can be seen separating from normal matter. The regular matter experienced electromagnetic friction, slowing down and lensing into each other, while the dark matter kept going.

    Dark energy could still be something wrong with redshift measurements. However, it’s anti-anthrocentric, so it seems fairly plausible to me. On the other hand, dark energy is literally supposed to be the fact empty space exerts anti-gravity.


    Herbert Zed Oinlein Reply:

    >Dark matter exists. In the bullet cluster, a colliding galaxy pair, it can be seen separating from normal matter.

    No one has any idea what the hell is happening there. The lensing signal can be explained without “dark matter”. You only need a system of equations which describe gravity that does not entail it as a fudge factor.


    Alrenous Reply:

    The definition of dark matter is literally matter that’s dark. So no, it can’t be explained without dark matter.

    michael Reply:

    something with mass exists or is at least exerting a gravitational effect call it what you like think of it as you want its a pretty cool name


    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    As a follow on from the “Canary in the Cathedral”



    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 3:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    I see different geometries; the right is a pyramid with a slightly flattened top, while the Left is a vast puddle with a tower in the middle.

    Destroyers are shit tests (PUA term) for all things that exist. If they cannot stand up for self-interest and resist subversion, they are consumed.

    In doing so, destroyers have an evolutionary role. They both carry off the weak, and imprint upon other things their own techniques, which can then be repurposed.


    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 3:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dick Wagner Says:

    As Jünger darkly remarked back in the 90s, “in my opinion the Last Man has already come” (an opinion he actually held long before that in ’34). The tower of mud has dissolved into the puddle. Destroyers have dried up the puddle. We are now beginning to cut bricks out of the dirt for the pyramid of the right.

    I’m being optimistic. The reality is the left is a Sphinx without a nose and rightists are robbers of cursed tombs.


    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 5:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Even if dark matter and dark energy are incorrect theories, they are describing a reality which is in keeping with the OP.

    Taking the other side, not only do we live on a Privileged Planet, in the Privileged Part of the Galaxy with Good Schools, but we also existed in the Privileged Universe, where it is possible to make something out of Nothing.

    Jonathan Edwards:
    there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up; there is no other reason to be given why you han’t gone to hell since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship: yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you don’t this very moment drop down into hell.

    O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: ’tis a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in hell; you hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment.


    Posted on September 26th, 2016 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    to be complely fair, they schould name it after you, “dark light of Nick Land. dark photons!! what a gloriouse moment momernt,after years (decades)of hardships, phylosophy sent physics into KO. they even dont have any other name for it, but dark light.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Gary Griffin Says:

    I have found there is no need to posit unverifiable matter or energy if one uses electromagnetic energy to power the Universe. See The Electric Universe for more.


    admin Reply:

    To think that the mainstream natural sciences have been so dim (or corrupt) that they’ve missed cosmic-scale charge-separation is a stretch too far for me.


    SVErshov Reply:

    “If true, it’s revolutionary,” said Jonathan Feng, professor of physics & astronomy. “For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, ”

    it isbiggest thingin physics at the moment.

    when last time fundamentall force of nature been dis overed?
    Protophobic Fifth-Force Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in Be8 Nuclear Transitions

    few more veryfications and it going to become official


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 3:42 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Irish idealist sees the bright side of dark energy –


    Another opening for the God of the gaps.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 8:28 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    Cosmic inflation theory is a wild ride when you look at it closely.


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 8:53 am Reply | Quote
  • NRK Says:

    I had
    nine arms

    in the sunshine

    were legs
    like tentacles
    in the daylight

    I want
    to go out into the night
    want my


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 9:04 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    even with 10 arms you cannot listen Shnitkej REQUIEM, and apreciateall allits craziest beauty on metro train, unless ofcourseif you have veryexpensive headphones like BOSE QuietComfort® 25 Acoustic Noise Cancelling® headphones


    Posted on September 27th, 2016 at 12:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#25) Says:

    […] Dark Energy (Outside In) […]

    Posted on October 2nd, 2016 at 1:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    Artaud expresses it well:

    this “dead rat’s ass suspended from the ceiling of the sky”, whence issues the daddy-mommy-me triangle, the “uterine mother-father of a frantic anality”, whose child is only an angle, this “kind of covering eternally hanging on something that is the self.”

    ….the history sketched out by Artaud in his masterpiece Heliogabale.

    The entire history of the graphic flux goes from the flood of sperm in the tyrant’s cradle to the wave of shit in his sewer tomb – “all writing is so much pig shit”, all writing is this simulation, sperm and excrement.

    The schizo knows how to leave: he has made his departure into something as simple as being born or dying….

    For here is the desert propagated by our world, and also the new earth, and the machine that hums, around which the schizos revolve…

    planets for a new sun.

    But such a man produces himself as a free man, irresponsible, solitary and joyous, finally able to say and do something simple in his own name, without asking permission; a desire lacking nothing, a flux that overcomes barriers and codes…

    a name that no longer designates any ego whatever.

    (from Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus, pgs 131, 143 and 211)


    Posted on October 3rd, 2016 at 2:09 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/10/02) - Social Matter Says:

    […] Land has an homage (with a cool pic) to Dark Energy. Also a sentence he and I definitely agree […]

    Posted on October 5th, 2016 at 8:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Sun gods - L'Editie Says:

    […] Matteo Pasquinelli relates the obsession with artificial intelligence as a new form of animism: “Technological Singularity (according to which computing machines would become self-conscious) seems typical of the human tendency to anthropomorphize the unknown”. We should strive to recall that in encountering the cosmic (and indeed- the technological) we are faced with something truly other. […]

    Posted on October 6th, 2016 at 6:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • 4our Says:

    I would just like to state that it was an honor and a pleasure to have essentially grown up on the net, imageboards especially, with and among people who showed not only the great potential still residing within mankind, but also that, contrary to popular and modern belief, good men can’t be snuffed out anywhere near as easily as many on this planet have come to fear was not only possible, but, inevitable, at least, in the last hundred or so years. Consciousness and perception truly are miraculous.

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially as a novelty swingset, or an imitation 2 cylinder engine. Thanks for the memo…thanks for the memes, the dreams, and the laughs. Fuck bob hope.


    Posted on October 10th, 2016 at 7:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    inserir: https://www.ijera.com/papers/Vol7_issue1/Part-1/C0701011314.pdf


    Posted on December 24th, 2018 at 9:06 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment