David Kaplan is always a pleasure to listen to

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

@adamhanninen8295

10 ай бұрын

Agreed - I wish he would’ve talked about the “dark matter wind” though. How the collision rate of DM varies as earth rotates and orbits the sun

This is probably the best lecture on KZread regarding Dark Matter. For the most part it stays away from confusing simplifications and gives an advanced layman the 'how' a basic theory is made by physicist and why current explainations all lead to 'we don't know what Dark Mater is'. All why Dark Mater is not a thing and only an observation.

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

I have always believed that the person who knows the material the best is the one that is clearest to understand. Dr. Kaplan is a gem.

Really great lecture. So incredibly informative!

if Dr Don likes it, I like it. nuff said. I'll watch every dark matter vid y'all make.

@AllenProxmire

10 ай бұрын

it's crazy that dark matter isn't in the maths. like antimatter and the higgs was predicted. if it is outside the standard model, gravity might not be quantized? i wonder if some antimatter decayed into dark matter, solving 2 issues?

Very good and clear explanation. Thank you.

Enjoyable and informative lecture. Thanks Kappers, as a lay-lover of all things physics, your review was great. Concise, structured, without hyperbole and precise, one of the easiest lectures to listen to in a long time. Q, does Weakly Interacting mean, interacting in the Regime of the Weak Force, or is it more-so "interacts very weakly with some particular forces". My understanding was the first, that it doesn't couple to the EM Field at all. But Gravity, yes, maybe Weak Field, unlikely Strong Field. Tx H&K.

I hope I’m still alive when this all gets figured out.

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

Great explanation!!!

Nicely put. Cheers.

This was so well-explained, well-structured, and very accessible to the layperson. It really helped me understand. My hat's off to you sir!

Thanks for the update on the journey into this frontier. It's been a while since I've seen a complete overview of the current laws and the standard model. I like the way you reorganized the chart. WIMP lensing gives us all something to think about however when the observable data, at the macro scale, does not fit current theory perhaps don't give up on that front either.

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

Clumps of stuff. That's what I've always thought! Thanks for the insight!

Excellent explanations! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 😊 Understandable for the average educated man 😊👍👍 Very honest…we don’t know…a new type of matter 😊 Could dark matter be graviton fields…appears as gravity…but its a wave…a fault (not a particle)…in spacetime…created by the Big Bang/Big Crunch😉

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

Sooo, Dark(matter) Arts with Severus Snape. I'm in.

Unrelated, but fascinatingly similar as an anecdotal analogy to the rotation of the outermost spiral galactic bodies, relative to the innermost, nearest the core. -Consider some herding animals, like sheep cattle horses etc.; When in large groups of say a hundred or more, either in a pen or open field where there's a point of central feeding area, or marshalling corral. -When observed from above in so many cases, the entire herd begins a rotation of the central point, and the beasts on the outside circumference are "matching" the positions of their counterparts nearer the central point. -DM's not involved, but after seeing some overhead drone footage of this on YT, and also watching videos of dark matter and galaxies, I just thought it was a neat little analogy.

He is a good communicator

Thanks for sponsoring this. I really enjoyed it. Shame the detectors have to be so sensitive that I cannot create an antenna array in my backyard to run experiments on dark matter radio interactions.

Can we use the light’s doppler effect with different satellites to get the velocity in what we are spinning to and point to the direction of center of spin?

visited the site of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search ages ago, cool presentation there

Interesting.

Dr. Carter, your image in the video is blurred, I think you'd check the focus of the camera.

DON'T JUST SAY THAT SOMEONE HAS DEGREES/CERTIFICATIONS/LICENSES! SAY WHAT THE DEGREES, CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES ARE IN!!!

Can MOG (STVG) by John Moffat be ruled out, or is it a viable alternative to dark matter?

My idea so I get to name it! What I mean is, no one has claimed it so I'm officially calling, "dibs." Voyager 1 is now in Milky Way's interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." "V-ger's" message has sped up now that it's outside our suns time bubble or, "Terran Time." It will be faster still when "V-ger" sends a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. (That name is still up for grabs.) Then there's Outside the Local Group time bubble, so on and so on until we get to the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." Now that "V-ger" is in interstellar space, it's also in the Milky Way's STANDARD, faster moving, interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." This can be proven by turning off everything except its clock and transmitter. Have "V-ger" read time for as long as possible. They WILL show the flow of time speeds up the further away you get from any celestial bodies. Until you reach the Milky Way's time standard or "Mikey's Time." •Our sun's time bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured. •Milky Way's time bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until V-ger is outside the Ort cloud .007-.07% faster, maybe. Just for reference. •Local Group's time bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference. •Outside any influence in the, "True Interstellar Time Standard," or...;-P Name NOT up for grabs BUT just begging to be measured. The rate/flow of time is fastest here. (Time flows fastest here so it's best to have your motor boat.) ;-P A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about. The Milky Way's Interstellar Time Standard will be known as, "Mikey's Time." Pass it on, please and thank you!

Suppose we say that the size of space is constant and its particle size that is changing. So that the particle is getting smaller at some rate universally. You could explain inflation that way, too. This would not need dark matter to exist to explain phenomena at distances, perhaps. Did anyone discount this theory?

Good to see a fellow Husky!

What if movement is an illusion? Particles are just a wave in the matter field and just appear and disappear as the wave passes. Every spot in the universe has the intrinsic capacity to create matter if the surrounding area promotes it. Time dilation is just a change in how fast or slow this appearances and disappearances occur. It makes sense that if you are moving fast it is harder to these changes to occur. Also if you have a lot of mass that tries to keep bodies together it would be harder to make those changes from spot to spot

What if dark matter doesn't manifest as any kind of measurable particle, but as a sort of redundandant field. I think it could be possible that gravitational fields surrounding large objects, such as galaxies, may result in a diffuse imprint-like redundancy that maginifies the gravitational field, itself. Some elusive property of spacetime, perhaps. One possible indicator might be proportionality. If there could be established a set ratio between the mass of a galaxy and its "dark matter" in terms of both mass and volume, this could easily be tested for and ruled out.

Listening

How big does the accelerator need to be to find this stuff?

If space is defined by the moment the universe started what would you call a possible area that existed outside this space? Obviously this area exists even if expansion is defined as expanding into nothing. Nothing could actually be more physical than all the energy in the entire universe packed densely into one point.

There is an elephant in the room explanation for "dark matter". Most people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light" He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. This is illustrated in a common 2 axis dilation graph with velocity on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical. It shows the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this. Nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to our own galactic center, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. Or more precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter) the missing mass is dilated mass. According to Einstein's math, galaxies with very, very low mass would not have dilated mass because they do not have enough mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, this has been confirmed with 5 very low mass galaxies all showing no signs of dark matter, in other words they have normal star rotation rates. There is no black holes or dark matter, relativity explains the phenomenon we see.

Those old energy time, momentum position relationships. What, wait, gravity has a field of energy uncertainty for a time? It might have a 1/r^2 dependence as a delta on the 1/(r+x)^2-1/(r-x)^2 .... oh well mass might appear a bit heavier as radius goes up.

@SimonJackson13

10 ай бұрын

"But it's not zero is it ... ?"

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

As well known in the field, Vera Rubin discovered the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies using optical spectra, which could be a Noble prize worth discovery. However, very few people noticed that when Vera Rubin interpreted her observational results, she made a very simple mistake: She applied the spherical model to the spiral galaxies (see the paper published in Science by Vera Rubin: Science, New Series, Vol. 220, No. 4604 (Jun. 24, 1983), pp. 1339-1344). Also, when you read the paper published by Fritz Zwicky in 1937 (THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, Vol. 86, No. 3, 217-246) carefully, you will notice that he also utilized a spherical model to estimate the mass of the Coma cluster. As every physicist should know, an object with a spherical mass produces a Keplerian rotational curve, but a disk-like mass distribution will not follow that. Therefore, the key issue is how the mass is distributed in a galaxy. Any galaxy with a spherical (or close to spherical) mass distribution will not need dark matter. The results of NGC1052-DF2 and DF4 are the examples. The flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies are caused by the disk shaped (non spherical) mass distributions. With the latest GAIA data, we can show that by using a disk mass distribution model and by solving the Poisson equation of the Galaxy, we obtain a flat rotation curve which reproduces the key observed features with no need for a dark halo (arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1612/1612.07781.pdf ). By the way, MOND is just another way to reflect the effects caused by the non-spherical mass distributions. If MOND is correct, how can Newtonian mechanics work for DF2 and DF4 without modifications? So, dark matter does not exist and it is just a consequence of misusing Newton’s law in gravitational systems with non-spherical mass distributions. Newtonian mechanics does not need to modify when the non-spherical mass distributions are considered.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

First, there is lots of evidence that even disc galaxies contain a huge _spherical_ component - the halo. Second, galaxy clusters _are_ roughly spherical (not disc-shaped), so Zwicky's results still hold. Third, you conveniently ignore the BAOs. Additionally: This paper was written in December 2016. But nevertheless, after 6.5 years, it apparently was _not_ published anywhere in the actual scientific literature, but _still_ is only on the ArXiv? Could you please explain why?

@enbangli7609

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Objects with same total mass and different mass distributions will produce completely different gravitational forces, for details see: doi/10.1142/S2424942417500049 It has been discovered that elliptical or globular galaxies contain little or no dark matter, see a Science paper doi/10.1126/science.1087441 and those on more recent results of NGC1052-DF2 and DF4. People often take the gravitational lensing as the evidence for existence of dark matter. In fact, gravitational lensing is related to the gravitational potential produced by the lensing system and, again the gravitational potential is determined by the mass distribution of the lens. The arxiv paper was submitted to a high impact journal for publication and after a long-time review and debate with the reviewers and the journal editors, it was given up. Here is paragraph copied from one reviewer’s comments: “- p.2 It is stated that Gaia has obtained parallaxes and proper motions of over one billion objects brighter than G = 20.7. This is not true. It has only done so for a sample of 2.1 million sources.” There are 1.14 billion objects in the DR1 of Gaia and the same number of objects were utilized for producing the results presented in the paper. If reviewer even got that number wrong, what you could do?

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 "Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein." Einstein didn't say that. You misunderstand what Einstein actually said. "Dark energy is dual to dark matter." Completely wrong. They are _very_ different from each other. The rest is even worse. Please get a basic education in physics instead of writing total drivel.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@enbangli7609 First, you simply ignored most of my arguments. No surprise there, I expected that already. "The arxiv paper was submitted to a high impact journal for publication and after a long-time review and debate with the reviewers and the journal editors, it was given up." Again, thanks, just as I suspected. "There are 1.14 billion objects in the DR1 of Gaia" But for only a small amount of those, the proper motions were reliably measured! So the reviewer is right, and you are wrong. But nevertheless you insist that it's the reviewer who is wrong, although this is a quite basic _fact_ which you simply deny here. No further discussion needed, thanks. Bye.

Your "friend" is on the right track. ;O)- Unfortunately, for more accurate results it will need to be done in space.

Have a good night david

An electron was driving down the highway when it was pulled over for speeding by a traffic cop. "Do you know how fast you were going?" asked the cop. "No" replied the electron. "You were going 88 miles an hour." said the cop. "Great!" said the electron. "Now I am lost!".

Does it have to be matter inside our universe? Maybe evidence of M-Theory. The Galaxy is gravitationally attracted to something outside of our universe's brane?

To my thinking Dark Matter is “apparent matter” that is produced by local (to other matter) variations in the energy level of the Higgs Scalar Field. In this thinking the Higgs Field is a loop energy static field which confines matter energy giving it mass and momentum. The more matter in any location, the higher the energy level of the field in that location, and the higher the energy level in any location the greater the Gravitational effect as Gravity is due to the energy gradient of the Higgs Field where matter energy moves from the lowest Higgs Field energy level towards the highest. The highest energy level of the Higgs Field is in Neutron Stars prior to collapse, at the boundary of Black holes, or at speed of light boundaries such as the immediate proximity of the LHC Proton Beam at near light speed, particle jets from energetic bodies such as black holes, etc. Large bodies of the Dark Matter Effect are created when massive bodies of matter adjust their volume by combining or collapsing causing there to be a higher regional Higgs Field energy than the local matter required from separate bodies. There are several ways to test this notion I believe. One is that if this thinking has any substance then there should be an elevated Higgs Field Energy Level in the immediate proximity of the LHC Proton Beam, and there should be a measurable difference in the Gravity immediately above and below the Proton Beam. Also a laser light directed to intersect the Proton Beam (at near light speed should deflect towards the Proton Beam as the energy of the beam induces the effect of there being extra matter (Matter equals Energy) only in this case the matter is “Apparent Matter” as it can be modulated with the energy of the beam Protons. Most importantly though is that if there is any substance to this thinking, where our Galaxy has an amount of Dark Matter, all of our Physical measurements and all of or Physics, have been determined in the presence of what ever effects this Dark Matter Effect creates. If Dark Matter is indeed …matter… then probably no effect, but if Dark Matter is the effect from an elevated energy level of the Higgs Scalar Energy Field (recognizing that this effect is sufficient to modify the motion of stars in the galaxy and bend light) then our base measurements of nature will be marginally affected and will need to be adjusted where calculations of deep space are considered.

If Le Verrier was one out of two, with a 50% success rate, do we really want to use him as an example of the success of scientific understanding in making accurate predictions? I think that one day we will all be embarrassed that some of the smartest people took this concept seriously.

Can the slower rotation of inner parts of galaxy being caused by time dilation? More mass in the center, thus time moves slower there (from our point of view). And vice versa - not much matter in the outer rims of galaxy, thus time ticks faster and they seem to orbit faster. Did anyone tried to calculate the effect for an average galaxy?

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Time slows down in gravitational field -- time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

@eljcd

10 ай бұрын

To give a more sensical answer... No. There has to be speeds of tens of thousands km/s for time dilation effects to be noticeable. And the faster rotating galaxies known go around at less than 1000 km/s.

@hoba4093

10 ай бұрын

Im not talking about time dilation caused by speed but by gravity.

17:00 "the univers was one big star." With this mass size ratio, could we call it a black hole? The mass that black hole would extrude space time, so that from the outside it looks finite and from the inside infinite. Then gravity and dark energy are revealed to be the same slop of space time. Some say the hill goes up others that it goes down. But it's just the same slope and only your orientation makes it look different.. Then the surface of the big bang is the quantum scale. And virtual particles slide along each other making black hole grow and radiate at the same time. That flow is gravity at the quantum level. An edg dislocation is virtual particles moving like the famous infinite basketball team moving one seat on there infinite row of chair to let a new player in. The conservation of energy is respected one virtual particle fall in the other fallout.

Modified gravity theories have its limitations but can't be discarded in such a shallow way... it seems to me that once again we see a mainstream scientist with very little knowledge of alternative explanations, reproducing what he heard about them... Gravitional lensing is sucessfully explained in MOND extensions, there is a MOND extension that reproduces the CMB power spectrum neatly,.... but all this was left uncommented. The scope of MOND is equivalent to classical Newton Dynamic, hence the name. To address relativistic effects has to be used a relativistic extension of MOND.... if gravitational lensing is labeled as a "MOND killer" than the same conclusion has to be drawn about Newton dynamics.... and we use Newton laws to send rockets to space, so I guess we can consider it right... under certain conditions.

Why still use the world Force about GR ? And it's not the human eye, a machine would see the same light following the curved spacetime in a strait line, nothing is bending anything.

So light waves change shape and size with the expanding of the universe, but photons, remain unchanged? How does that work?

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

No, photons do not remain unchanged - they lose energy.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

​@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Ah.... Thank you.

is dark matter composed of matter remnants of the past?

I thought you already discovered virtual particles!

If DM is centered as a clump around a Galaxy, could it not be light enough to be an emmission from the Black hole?

Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity and Accelerated Expansion - 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Gravitation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void, Accelerated Expansion and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different. The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem. I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena. That's because gravity is not a force. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime. Details are given below. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy

Could dark matter be the new ether?

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

What if they misunderstood the problem -- would they accept a challenge to their egos?

A question I had about the Feynman path integration formula. If light is travelling multiple paths (like through a lens) the intensity (number of photons) can increase, where did the extra photons/energy come from? They seem to just appear from ‘nowhere’ given special geometry(a lens).

Is it possible that dark matter's wave travels faster than light?

@KenJohansen

10 ай бұрын

Why do you ask when you know nothing with mass can go as fast as C.

@MikkelHojbak

10 ай бұрын

No, if it was moving that fast then it wouldn't be gravitationally bound to the galaxies.

@bobjackson6669

10 ай бұрын

@@MikkelHojbak Thank you for the information.

Speaking of my theory. If you see time as the inventor of everything basically. Without time nothing ever happened or well happened. I think time invented black holes Before an invented matter I.e. That Is the big Bang . Wasn't the first thing that happened that black holes happen first and that's why they have dimensions.

I thought the axion is still hypothetical.

@arctic_haze

10 ай бұрын

It is. No one have seen it. Explaining one unknown by another unknown is pure speculation, at least in my opinion.

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

Could expansion of space have red shifted the early neutrinos for some of dark matter?

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

Redshift happens to photons and other particles which have no rest mass. But neutrinos _do_ have a rest mass. But yes, neutrinos do indeed contribute to dark matter. But they only contribute a quite small part.

@kx4532

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 They can get slowed to a stop maybe

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@kx4532 So what? That wouldn't change anything of what I wrote above.

@arctic_haze

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Still, neutrinos emitted in a part of Universe receding with the speed of 0.95 c will reach with at most 0.05 c. I mean roughly because it's the manifold etc.

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

I see your video and it does not look real to me so I'm in doubt?

Non-baryonic dark matter does not exist. The gravitational force laws need to be corrected.

Maybe dark matter is entropy

Photons having a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny mass might solve that dark matter problem the irony of that ha

What is dark matter ? We don't know. What is dark matter hiding, We don't know that either. Very handy as it means that speculators can come up with all kinds of outrageous theories and it's impossible to prove them wrong. Listen with caution.

What if its extremely dense collections of ordinary matter that dont reflect light for some reason, like a mini black hole? Or maybe instead its some sort of transparent matter that can refract the incoming light waves from stars to correct the way its gravity offsets the light path...

How about this? Dark Energy is EQUAL to Energy plus TIME, for our purposes here, "HEAVY TIME." Mira, look, we see this electron orbit however many times a minute. We set that as our base reading, right? For our plain of existence, anyway. However, in these pockets of, "heavy time," that same electron now has readings of a billion times a minute because time is HEAVY here and passes a billion times faster. Or, energy where there shouldn't be energy / dark energy / Heavy Time. See, in that same minute to us, that electron aged a billion times faster and therefore has given off readings of dark energy. Dark energy IS "HEAVY TIME." It's the difference in TIME that we're seeing! Maybe. The light from these galaxies have been aged by going through pockets of dark energy or "heavy time." Numbers used for reference only. TI-I-I-IME IS ON MY SIDE! YES, IT IS! Now we look at the other side of the coin, dark matter. Pockets of dark matter are actually pockets of "LIGHT TIME." Mira, look, if heavy time is faster pockets of time. It stands to reason, light time would be slower pockets of time, right? Making our base electron seem to stand still. Get a pocket full of seemingly motionless nothing and you get a pocket of starving dark matter. In this case, "starving," or slower pockets in time is the same as creating a vacuum in space. Since this pocket of "Light time" is "starving" and everything outside this pocket of dark matter is in a "heavier time," it makes it appear dark matter is attracting when really it's just a vacuum, IN TIME, trying to equalize. Making it stand to reason, by my, "I'm not smart enough to give anything more than this simplified reasoning, that Dark Matter is "LIGHT TIME" and Dark Energy is "HEAVY TIME." Maybe. Now think about this. As light travels through the universe and passes through these pockets of Heavy Time or Light Time. Doesn't that "age" that particular beam of light? Doesn't that beam of light that is say 40 million light years away now look like it's 100 million light years away? If I'm right, it would explain why these 6 "old" galaxies are being discovered. Also, if I'm right and someone proves it, you must name it after me and give me a cut of the Nobel prize winnings. Pass it on please. and thank you. P.S. I may have gotten the names, LIGHT and HEAVY, backwards. Thanks again and don't worry. Where I come from, crazy is a compliment! ;-P

We don't know what dark matter is and never will until we take on sensory mechanisms in addition to the 5 we already have. Example: try explaining what colors are to a person who has been blind since birth. You will never inform that person successfully. However, if that blind person were to have sight for just a couple seconds then that person would instantly know what colors are. We need additional sensory mechanisms and none of us can imagine what they would be.

@stephendatgmail

10 ай бұрын

Nah - we know about all sorts of things undetectable by our ordinary senses - infrared light, neutrinos, the strong nuclear force, etc. Broadly speaking, we observe how these things interact with what we can observe and infer their existence.

@normtheteacher5485

10 ай бұрын

@@stephendatgmail we know those things are there but we still don't know what they are. Even magnetism and gravity. We know they are there because we can observe their effects. No one knows what they are. We can't directly percieve gravity. We can only observe it's effect. We need other senses...whatever they would be, to directly percieve gravity and many other phenomena including dark matter.

@normtheteacher5485

10 ай бұрын

@@Peppa_Dew very true!

@stephendatgmail

10 ай бұрын

​@@normtheteacher5485 Sure, I guess that's kind of true in some philosophical sense. But is there a truly meaningful, quantifiable way that you "know" what visible light is, but not these other things just by virtue of the fact that your eyes can detect it? The body of human knowledge can describe the properties and behaviors of visible light and neutrinos equally well. With DM we simply don't know them yet, so it seemed you were speaking less philosophically and more about what you perceive as the reason for this gap in knowledge.

He discovered Uranus

What about the gas lens that exists about all stars. That will effect things too.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

What exactly do you mean with "gas lens", and how would that explain e. g. the rotation curves of galaxies?

@richardlinsley-hood7149

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 All gravitation masses will attract a gas lens around them. Think of it like an atmosphere. The greater the mass, the bigger the lens. A radiation source, like the Sun for instance, will also have a solar wind that decreases in density as you get further from the object.

@joehebert789

10 ай бұрын

"What about" is not a primer to a good conversation about anything. You couldn't get more ambiguous.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@richardlinsley-hood7149 It's clear that there are gases around large bodies like suns. But why do you think these gases would act as a lens? And again: how would that explain e. g. the rotation curves of galaxies?

@richardlinsley-hood7149

10 ай бұрын

@@joehebert789 Are you suggesting that the density of gas/solar wind does not increase the closer you get to a star?

Could dark matter be very small black holes that are stable because created by virtual particles falling in and the other particle falling out? The action of falling in the black hole would be the curvature itself. There hawking radiation keeps them apart. And they don't evaporate because they are the quantum fluctualion. A positve univers outside the black hole and an anti matter univers in black holes. Words dont convey my meaning perfectly. So instead of lookng at what is wrong in what i say. Try to asp yourself, how could it make sense to him? How can i see what he sees? Prediction : the univers is the bending of space time.there is no matter. No separate stuff. Matter is a useful tool, a way of describing. It has no more reality that a fist has...as you open your hand. ❤

Could Dark Matter be the historical Aether? I like to imagine it as "space" itself. That within which everything is contained or that within which everything propagates.

The stars in our galaxy do not all move at the same speed. The speed of a star depends on its distance from the center of the galaxy. Stars that are closer to the center of the galaxy move faster than stars that are further away. This is because the gravitational pull of the center of the galaxy is stronger closer to the center. The Sun is located about 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is moving at a speed of about 220 kilometers per second (140 miles per second). This is a relatively slow speed compared to other stars in the Milky Way. For example, the star Sirius, which is the brightest star in the night sky, is moving at a speed of about 120 kilometers per second (75 miles per second). The speed of a star also depends on its mass. More massive stars tend to move faster than less massive stars. This is because more massive stars have more gravity, which pulls them towards the center of the galaxy. The motion of stars in our galaxy is also affected by the presence of dark matter. Dark matter is a mysterious substance that makes up about 85% of the matter in the universe. Dark matter does not interact with light, so it cannot be seen directly. However, its presence can be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. The gravitational pull of dark matter helps to keep the stars in our galaxy in orbit around the center. If it were not for dark matter, the stars in our galaxy would fly off into space. The motion of stars in our galaxy is a complex topic that is still not fully understood. However, scientists are constantly learning more about it. Above according to BARD!

Jon Evans got it right. The whole problem with cosmology are these three very simple things: There is no Dark Matter, The Universe is NOT expanding, and the age of it is around 80 billion years or so. It's a tri-fold problem and each one keeps rotating back to the next in a nice circular pattern. It's all due to bad measurements when it comes to Dark Matter. Expansion of space is pretty much the same thing. And the age of the universe causes a ton of problems because you simply keep trying to cram everything into a tiny little window and you come up with things such as Crinkle Quazi Matter bubbles. Dark Matter in perticular I almost believe was some high end troll to keep funding for other projects while they kept this nonsense going. Then I came to realize it's just a bunch of hacks that can't visualize space. Heres a cool part to shut down some genius like Kaplan. I'm sorry. Dr Esquire lord of the nonbinary David E. Kaplan. Ok SO Let's just start with this one. The smoking "gun" they use as the biggest indicator of Dark Matter is that bullet? cluster image where they go: SEE, YOU CAN "sEE" The dark matter, move freely between the galaxies while the regular matter gets held up. OK I think some simple analysis takes care of this one. So you say It does not interact with matter except by gravity. However, why would the "Dark matter" just sit magically outside the galaxies to keep them together? but then in this "SMOKING GUN" it basically floats right through both the galaxies AND THE OTHER DARK MATTER it self. uH? What? oh this is the part when you catch them in nonsense that they can't dispute they go "THATS WHY ITS DARK MATTER ITS CRAZY" . It doesn't exist. These people promoting it are nothing more than philosophers who sit around finding lil logic loops in thinking so they can argue about it for years and stay relevant. PS: Heard if you take just the age of the universe on its own and start from the bottom up with no time constraints, you can easily come up with a model of how the universe looks today. Oh, It's funny how "space is expanding" but then when you look at the giant map of the cosmos weve been piecing together, all you do is see a giant web of interaction.. oh and that thing called gravitational waves I mean, they show things are connected from far distances or something. Silly me.

Great Vid, thanks. Dark Matter == Space (You could go further and say Zero Degree Celsius space i.e. Non Contributing) You should also describe the Density as directly proportional to the particle weight, which means from the "Space" perspective, particles are the low density regions, and the wave is the high density region in front of the particle trajectory or a static standing wave around the particle. This reverses if you are looking from the particle perspective !! You have to describe space as a fluidic tensor field We are trying to describe "Space abhors a Vacuum" , which if you look at it is a very conflicted statement! A tensor exists in space itself which makes space "hang on to itself" anywhere up to the speed of light. After velocity goes above c you are in the Big Bang Hyper space, a space where every particle is travelling faster than light. And finally ;-) ... !!! E=MC^2 returns a result in degrees Celsius (c^3 result) V/c returns a result in degrees Ceslius (c^3 result) Which means c (distance) == C^2 (grams) == C^3 (degrees celsius) Cheers Bernhard

Hello David, If you would be prepared to take a chance and reply to this comment, I can explain logically, both 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', 'Gravity' and much more. I am not a nutcase, I am a 73 year old successful Inventor with Patents granted. My hypothesis is being assessed at the ' Royal Society ' at present. I would be happy to send you a copy of my latest draft by email if you are interested, Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

so MOND is correct. but ppl still insist that dark matter exists due to the gravitational lensing. Even tho MOND doesnt rule out lensing at all

Einstein was wrong, Isaac Newton was wrong. Both considered we exist in space , we even have Spacex! Sorry folks there is no evidence for the existence of space. WE LIVE in TIME only. No such thing as Spacetime its just TIME. Nobel prize please!

@hyperduality2838

10 ай бұрын

Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Positive curvature (synchronic points) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic points) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Repulsive gravity, inflation, negative curvature = hyperbolic space or Dark energy! Hyperbolic geometry is dual -- chromo-geometry. Red relativistic geometry is dual to green relativistic geometry synthesizes blue relativistic or Euclidian geometry -- chromo-geometry. The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero -- non null homotopic, duality! Synchronic points (black holes) are dual to enchronic points (white holes) -- Janus points. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. The rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy (convergence) is dual to entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points -- non null homotopic.

I'm not a physicist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week. On the origin of dark matter, i If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then what the heck with anti-matter annihilating matter? +1-1=0, but who says zero is the same as nothing? Apart, +1 and -1 have an absolute value of 2. Perhaps together, they are something other than zero, and all the matter PLUS antimatter ever annihilated adds up to the mass of Dark matter.. What if matter and antimatter don't completely annihilate each other? What if it created dark matter instead of nothingness? So all the antimatter that got annihilated in the cosmos, equal to the amount of matter that has been annihilated, could be the chargeless, non-interacting, invisible matter that we call dark matter, with up to double the mass.

did you delete mudfossiluniversity's question? 🤔

Keep guessing

@ronaldkemp3952

10 ай бұрын

Exactly.

@alexbenzie6585

5 ай бұрын

Bro doesn't know how science works. You make educated guesses then see how to reprove them. Lol.

People really need to stop saying their is 'evidence' for non-baryonic darkmatter. It is a hypothesis which explains acceleration discrepancies but creates many other discrepancies. Evidence would be detection in a particle detector and a 5 sigma detection would be considered proof. Decades of non-detection despite herculean efforts at this point constitute negative evidence, though obviously not definitivly but certainly enough to make use doubt the hypothesis and stop treating it like dogma.

Answer this question. Why does dark matter affect the motion of our sun but not the planets and other small bodies in the solar system? Please, don't use the analogy planets don't contain enough mass to be affected by dark matter because according to the laws of motion all bodies fall at the same rate regardless of their mass, weight or density. We know a bowling ball falls at the same rate as a feather in the vacuum of space. So the mass and density of the star or planet plays no role in this accelerated attraction created by large bodies.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

Why do you think dark matter does _not_ affect the motion of the planets?!

@Sonex1542

10 ай бұрын

Someone who uses feathers and balls to compare their interactions to planets and galaxies. These are the crackpots who knows more than physicists and take into account all the calculations of how massive amounts of particles interact with each other and other large bodies. Feathers... What a genius.

@ronaldkemp3952

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 The laws of motion and general relativity perfectly explain the motion and orbits of the planets and other small bodies in our solar system right? Dark matter and dark energy are only proposed when they cannot explain the motion of the bodies being observed. Did you know our solar system is receding rapidly away from the central black hole at around 900,000 mile per hour? Did you know the stars orbiting close to the black hole are extremely young? Did you know the satellite galaxies orbiting extremely far away from the black hole are extremely old? If we then do a thought experiment, using the age, velocity and overall trajectory of the bodies in our galaxy it contradicts a big bang from creating everything in our galaxy. If we were to reverse time everything would have been born from the supermassive black hole in the center. Everything is moving rapidly away from it. In time everything then was birthed by it. According to general relativity nothing can escape the gravity of a black hole, not even light. Yet the digital sky survey found all the bodies to be receding rapidly away from the black hole. They've referred to it as a high velocity dispersion rate of matter in galaxies. One astrophysicist even proposed the supermassive black hole was a white hole in disguise because it's constantly spewing massive amounts of energy and matter. They have kept this data under wraps because it violates all their theories and evolutionary cosmological model of the universe, from a big bang, cosmic inflation onward. At first when the discrepancies in motion appeared they began suspecting dark matter and dark energy. Now they're leaning on white holes and wormholes, trying to make computer simulations to convince everyone of white holes and wormholes because otherwise they would all look incompetent for being wrong about the science. Then the JWST discovered galaxies extremely far away that should be small and young at such distance. But the galaxies were large, fully formed smooth and developed, some were 20 time larger than our galaxy. Their world of theories, laws and models of the universe will fall if they're unable to incorporate or explain all these mistakes. I'm a retired professional. I took up learning physics, astrophysics, particle physics, quantum theory, phycology, philosophy, consciousness and more as a hobby many years before I retired. I wanted to learn everything. After I retired I turned this hobby into a full time obsession to keep my mind sharp. I've written and published more than 12 books in the last 2 years, not including the 11 books that still need to be edited and illustrated before they can be published. I've been really busy. I discovered many problems with dark matter, then a single solution to all the motion. The solution is not gravity, dark matter, dark energy, white holes or black holes. The solution to all the motion was so simple, it led me to believe experts are purposely misleading everyone. Why would they be covering up the action causing everything to move? I explained it all in a 6 part series starting with SECRET UNIVERSE: GRAVITY by Ron Kemp on Amazon and Kindle e-books.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@ronaldkemp3952 You write _lots_ of stuff which is _totally_ irrelevant to my question, so I'll mainly repeat my question and won't bother replying to the rest of your long, irrelevant text. So here is my question again: "Why do you think dark matter does not affect the motion of the planets?!" "The laws of motion and general relativity perfectly explain the motion and orbits of the planets and other small bodies in our solar system right?" Only if one _assumes_ a certain value for the mass of the sun. We simply don't know how much of the mass of the sun is ordinary matter and how much is dark matter. So claiming that dark matter does not affect the motions of the planets makes no sense. We simply don't know that. Additionally, you conveniently ignore that the planets do not move _only_ around the sun, but _also_ around the center of the galaxy. If the planets were _not_ affectec by dark matter in the same way as the sun, their orbits around the center of the galaxy would be _different_ than the orbit of the sun, i. e. the planets would _not_ stay bound to the sun, but the sun and the planets would move away from each other. Oh, and for the rest of your claims: Please provide evidence for them. Most of that stuff I've heard never before, although I follow astrophysical news quite closely. (And for the few things I _have_ heard, I already know that you misrepresent it!) So if I never heard of them, I strongly suspect that you either misunderstood lots of stuff, or simply made that stuff up yourself. "One astrophysicist even proposed the supermassive black hole was a white hole in disguise because it's constantly spewing massive amounts of energy and matter." Interesting that you don't bother to tell the name of that astrophysicst. :D It's because such an astrophysicst doesn't realyl exist, right? You simply made that up. "I'm a retired professional." Professional what? "I've written and published more than 12 books in the last 2 years" So what? Anyone can publish books nowadays, it's quite easy to find publishing houses which will publish anything. I, too, have published several books - but in contrast to you, I published them in one of the most prestigious publishing houses in my country, and they are used by thousands of physics students. "I discovered many problems with dark matter, then a single solution to all the motion. ... The solution to all the motion was so simple, it led me to believe experts are purposely misleading everyone. " And you probably are not aware of the Dunning Kruger effect, right?

@ronaldkemp3952

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I said in the first paragraph, the laws of motion and the theory of general relativity perfectly explain the motion of the planets and other small bodies in our solar system. That was my answer to your silly question! Think about it, if dark matter was affecting them, then the laws of motion and general relativity would NOT be able to accurately describe their motion. Do you even know why dark matter was proposed in the first place? I'll explain it, because general relativity and the laws of motion can't explain the motion of 95% of all the visible stuff in the universe. Instead of fixing the theory and laws of motion to explain the motion, they rely on things that can't be measured? Think about that if you understand the scientific method.

Think MOND

@unduloid

10 ай бұрын

Nope.

Jump over the first 30 minutes

Dark matter, the next fantasy of that which can not be proven.

I’ve enjoyed so many of your videos but this is so sub par visually and sound wise even compared to videos you released more than a decade ago… please do better.

For those that are interested ... MOND MOND is a way of deriving the compressed space time dilation of large galactic or solar system objects. The question of Mercurys' orbit being much too slow for it's distance from the sun was originally posed by Albert Einstein in 1954. He published the question in 1955. The Answer was published by Stephen, J. Hawking in 1985, it used the radius of the orbit as a modifier which directly relates to Time-Dilation (i.e. Space compresses as it approaches the Sun), this compressed space "Red-Shifts" any velocity, so using this method we can derive the actual speed of Mercury in its' time-dilation space. Because we apply the radius as a ratio, we don't need to convert it to temperature as the radius is the only modifier for the temperature calculation (i.e. The temperature calculations all cancel out leaving you with the radius as the TDR ratio) Remember Kinetic mass counts for orbital mechanics, so multiply Mercurys' mass by its' velocity + the original observed mass if you want to model it. (c) 1985 Stephen. J Hawking, M.B.Eringa. PS: If the ambient temperature of Mercury is 10000ºC then the temperature TDR would be (10000/5)^2 seconds observed to one second experienced. So multiply Mercurys' observed speed by 4,000,000 for it's actual speed. MOND walks it back from Earths' observed one second equals one second based on radius from the Suns' chromosphere of +1,000,000 ºC and our observed temperature at the ISS of +250ºC, also note we observe a red-shifted output from Mercury so you have to blue-shift its' temperature for "Ambient" ºC surface temperature. **M.B.Eringa**

Inverse square law for those that care ... E=1/(R2/R1)^2 😎

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

What is E in that equation?

@bloodyorphan

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Any energy, Gravity, Electro magnetic , RF, lumins etc

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@bloodyorphan Energy does _not_ follow an inverse square law in most cases. Only _forces_ follow such a law. And not even all forces, essentially only the gravitational force and the electrostatic force.

@bloodyorphan

10 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 As you like, It applies to any energy that is spreading in 3d space, using a circular plane of measurement which is monodimensional versus the full 3d density sum equation, as the distance from the source increases the energy density decreases, this applies to all energies that disperse through space. 🙂

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

10 ай бұрын

@@bloodyorphan "It applies to any energy that is spreading in 3d space" Wrong. It applies only to the _energy density_ (energy per area), not to the energy itself. (You say that yourself below!!!) The energy itself remains constant. "using a circular plane of measurement which is monodimensional versus the full 3d density sum equation" Pardon? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. "as the distance from the source increases the energy density decrease" Yes. The energy _density_. Not the energy itself! So why did you claim that it's the energy which decreases?!?

Dark matter is real. It originated in the primordial past. It is hyperdimensional. It is very massive and very slow. Protons don't decay very fast, heavy Protons don't decay very fast. The multidimensional aspect of higher levels of DM make them much more stable. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they don't exist. The evidence of dark matter is overwhelming. Sadly the evidence for the standard model particle of dark matter is completely lacking. Here's the problem. Dark Matter has been around for far longer than standard model particles. Since they are so old and slow moving and neutral and massive they are not found just anywhere. In fact they tend to be found only at the centers of large massive objects like stars and planets and moons and the like. Otherwise, they are found in the halos of galaxies. The exception would seem to be large massive yet fragmented objects, such as the asteroid belt protoplanet between Mars and Jupiter. The masses of dark matter particles may well have several varieties from the least massive and youngest to the most massive and oldest. The least massive and youngest may well fall into the logarithmic scale proportional to that between Gravity and Electromagnetism. This is the hierarchical scale with Hadronic and Leptonic quarks at one end, the bottom end of this scale. This spans 10^36 in a scale proportional to the relative number of dimensions applying to this scale. Clearly there must be several dimensions in this scale. Approximately 7 dimensions seems to be the least massive divisision of this logarithmic scale that makes any sense. Applying a natural scale suggests that at minimum 1/18 of 36 or about 10^2 times as massive as quarks for the least massive initial stages or types of forms of dark matter, while 1/7 of 36 or about 10^5 or more times as massive as quarks for the most massive forms of the initial stages or types of dark matter. Consequentially, small quantities of this novel form of dark matter should be able to be detected, then found, isolated, formally discovered, transported, refined and manufactured. Obviously research and developments in the asteroid belt are going to be instrumental in this discovery. The slow pace of space exploration seems to mean that it's going to be a while before we get this discovery at long last. Of course, the future of dark matter doesn't really begin until its formal discovery, so we'll have to wait till then, whenever that may be. part 2 Ok. So the Chrysanthemum or Mum, sometimes called the Mon when depicted in art, can now be understood in terms of highly temporary but sometimes long lived quark models. It is sometimes well established that early versions of the mum were constricted within 2 dimensions. They were strongly limited, apparently limited to about 21 petals, as predicted by Fibonnacci. However, in later Mon depictions, full blown 3 dimensional mums have been depicted and are apparently grown and are flourishing. These are much larger than previous 2 dimensional models. In counterpart, quark models in the standard model have far exceeded the dark matter models contemplated. For instance, Charm quarks are over 600 times larger than standard Up quarks, and Bottom quarks are over 400 times bigger than standard Strange quarks. In previous models of the Fibonacci model of quark expansion, the numbers (10^2 to 10^5) are well known and within the known potential of this dimension of dark matter. We can expect this dimension of dark matter stable components within isolated dark matter, such as within isolated galactic halos. However, trapped dark matter components such as within stars, planets and moons may be decaying quickly, as exhibited by our own Moon, which has shut down and become locked in its gravitationally stabilized orbit, and the planets Mercury and perhaps even Mars, which apparently have also slowed down, and headed for stopping. This energetic model is shocking, and further dark matter and similar quark models, may be decaying or already gone, so the Mum/Mon model will be an important strategic exploration and investigation. I like the Chrysanthemum model for quarks anyway. It depicts the exponential growth of standard model quarks that we have already seen. However, I think we will see a plateauing of such quark expansions, I think the upper limit of further discoveries such as within the Cern Large Hadron Collider may be reached at about 10,000 times the mass of standard model Up quarks. Spoiler Alert: There may be some new quarks within this range. However, some dimensions or ranges of dark matter quarks may already have expired and would only be available at galactic scales of discovery and investigation. So dark matter research may still have local frontiers to discover, but may stall at this range. The good news is that we have an extremely long time to do this research and discovery of standard model quarks before dark energy expansion catches up with us. Relax. It's cool. I hope that you have enjoyed this Fibonacci mathematical Chrysanthemum experiment in both quarks and dark matter. Thank you for reading. part 3 Ok. So we are now assuming the Fibonnacci based Chrysanthemum model of hyperdimensional dark matter and quarks. Or we still have sluggards or Luddites who can't keep up. In this assumptive model, this structure suggests that such matter would be in the range of 10^5 to 10^8 times the mass of standard model quarks. For regular folks this is from 10,000 times to 100,000,000 times this mass. That is really close to the neutron star category of matter. While this may be amusing consider where this is going, the next phase of dark matter and as yet undiscovered quark masses would have to be in the range of 10^13 to 10^21, or 1,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 quark masses. Is this in the range of black holes yet? Or are we still stalled at very large neutron stars? Again we must pause and consider where we are. The first stages of dark matter is from 10^2 to 10^3 masses, the 2nd stage would be from 10^3 to 10^5 masses, the 3rd stage would be from 10^5 to 10^8 masses, and the 4th stage would be from 10^8 masses to 10^13 masses. Whew. Theoretically the 5th stage of dark matter would be 10^13 to 10^21 masses. That still leaves us with the 6th stage of the mass of dark matter and quarks. This is the staggering number of 10^21 to 10^34 masses for quarks and dark matter. Wow. This is clearly the end of our Chrysanthemum dark matter models. It is also the end of our hierarchical mass models. What comes after the end of our Electromagnetism model? I dare not postulate. But I suspect outer space models of dark energy. This is the incredible range of from 10^34 to 10^55 masses, a gut wrenching number times the mass of standard model quarks. This is the amount of masses that represents the beginning or the ending of the universe. It's not just a black hole. It's the end. Sorry - not sorry.

Do we need it? What is it? Where is it? How much? Do we need it? Do we need it? Do we need it? do we need it?

@jamismiscreant7514

10 ай бұрын

Indeed

@gckari9862

10 ай бұрын

All hail our favorite physics mommy

@arctic_haze

10 ай бұрын

Do you also follow the cheeky physics grad student? I think she is a great story teller and science popularizer.

@gckari9862

10 ай бұрын

@@arctic_haze yes, I think she's great!

@thefacethatstares

10 ай бұрын

@@gckari9862 i see someone's been hanging out on sci recently...