That's a lot of nutrinos! But it's hard to count something you can't see detect or even, properly speaking, calculate. If familiar with the actual conduct of physics you have to recognize that these rough guesses are, however well reasoned, wildly imprecise. Factors of two are often considered adequate for making predictions, and sometimes factors of ten are the best we can do. It's been a long time since I could do the calculus, but even when I was somewhat able to follow the math I wondered that the fact that matter spends most of its time "interfered" with by itself is not looked at as an issue to raise. Quantum positioning is a matter of formulating a curve of the probable location of a particle, because it effaces itself as it moves. But the assumption that it has no physical properties where/when it is not calculably there/then is not justified by the formal assumption, nor excluded by the physical evidence. Dark matter may be nothing more than residual properties of matter out of phase with itself. 

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

If by 'they' you mean physicists, I think you don't understand what we generally seek or why. Generally speaking,  we wish to understand measurements well enough to predict other measurements adequately,  and there is also æsthetic appreciation of the explanations and how they fit together, or at least appreciation that they don't. 
 
I think you're speaking of a different type of knowing, which some of us seek when we're 'off the clock', and in which others of us have little or no interest?I am one of the latter, as I think that sort of knowledge is in the end mire about the structure of our own brains than about the Universe outside ourselves, and if I were interested in that I would have become instead a neuroscientist. 

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

Hi Gerald, If by measure you mean the measure of nature or the universe then what is the measurement of nature or the universe? Is nature truly measurable or is it merely a dice game that Einstein found so objectionable? =

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

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

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

I've been reading a bit about cosmology lately; and quite a bit over time. Just made way through Roger Penrose' CYCLES OF TIME. Therein I discovered he and I have shared a thought for some number of years. Penrose talks about things like dark matter and something he terms Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. He also raises and reinforces the notion of what might have been extant prior to the ubiquitous Big Bang and whether or not that big noise truly was the beginning of time, the Universe, and the unfolding of things leading up to life as we know it. I have, myself, asked questions about whether the great thud WAS the beginning of all things timeless and universal, or whether it was only an important event in a grander (and even more timeless) timelessness (i.e., the universe was, long(?) before any sort of big bang; had no beginning in any sense we can truly fathom; and, therefore, the concept of time is mostly meaningless on any universal scale. Physics is a fascinating subject and Penrose' views are striking, whether one can grasp and/or agree with them or no. Dark matter and dark energy may or may not be finally revealed. And just so with quantum gravity. I am thinking, though, that there are things our knowledge will never permit us to know...without a lot more direct experience. Scientific thinkers (and some others) almost always raise more questions than they can answer.
Neuman