Dark matter is the exact opposite. Matter with mass but no other discernible properties. The universe has much more mass than we can see, so clearly something or somethings are there but invisible to us. Neutrinos, MACHOS, WIMPZILLAS, and more have been proposed. As well as SUSY matter, and lots of other shit. Also more complex theories like superstring theory, string theory, brane theory, and more.


We've created black holes a bunch of times in particle accelerator experiments. They fizzle out quickly. A black hole does not exert any special gravitational force - merely the force normal for an object of its mass. A black hole made from our sun, somehow, would have exactly the same gravitational properties as our sun.

The voices in my head told me so.

Why would you bump this awful awful thread.

I read that Black is not a colour. Unless your like painting and stuff, in which its an actual substance. But real black is when there is no light.
Black is like if you take all the light out of the rooom, your left with it. Its not anything really, just what our eyes make sense of a lack of light..
As for white, that's all colours in the spectrum together, although in painting terms brown is all colours together, which just helps explain that black paint is a colour, where as true black is something totally different.

Man up.

Read Beyond Good and Evil.

I'd love to get angry at you, but there is nothing to be angry at, your post makes some pretty good sense, I should just chill the silly goose out and quit thinking about this pointless matter.

My posts always make sense. Otherwise I wouldn't post.

Thanks man, the way you wrote it really made me realize how stupid I was acting.

Lol, I'm almost willing to call sycophant~

o_O

I wrote two words.

I meant the "flaming-pencil wrote : "Long winded and irritatingly moronic..." part.

oke, stop with this nonsense. I have been there myself.

If you are really a smart guy, than follow my advice. Go to the library and read books on Schoppenhauer and Nietschze , they will open your mind and give answers to the most complicated questions. After you read this, you will understand.

I have objections to this: Nietzsche and Schoppernhauer will not give you answers, and Nietzsche is incredibly densely-written and obtuse. Read Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre for a more simply-written dose of modern philosophy, though, again, it won't give you the answers you want. Most of these questions are practically unanswerable. I'm not saying, as some people (plebeians) would, that any attempt to answer the questions is doomed to failure and thus useless, just that it's highly unlikely that any answer anybody reaches will be the end-all of philosophical debate on that subject. Example: if anyone had proved with total certainty that God didn't exist, Christianity would not exist.

Nietzsche is helpful only as a springboard, in my opinion. Dude had a lot of great ideas, but also a metric fuckton of bad ones. Yes the silly goose's misappropriated his stuff and made shit up, but the dude still had plenty to disagree with.

I generally advise against reading philosophy for the most part, unless you intend to argue it. Bertrand Russell would be my only exception, probably. Otherwise I think you are better off reading works of fiction/literature which incorporate these philosophies, or something. Reading philosophy for practical reasons seems to me, often, like becoming a chemist because you have an interest in cooking. Most philosophers are wordy and use the linguistic equivalent of neutronium in their writing. They tend to write for other philosophers and not for laymen.

Also philosophy doesn't have answers, generally, and not to the sort of questions this thread asked. Those were - as I pointed out - questions of physics.