I'm not too critical of gravity theories, I just Let the chips fall where they may

@DrBenMiles

8 ай бұрын

😅

@prtauvers

8 ай бұрын

Einstein’s Gravity is letting me down…

@fabriziomoia6826

8 ай бұрын

Same but with the chicks

@hagiasmos314

8 ай бұрын

To understand gravity rightly a physicist must have a great deal of pull.

@amazzzinglarry

8 ай бұрын

Not saying MOND is right, but the evidence for modified gravity in general is increasing while the search for dark matter repeatedly strikes out. If I were Mordehai Milgromm and Kyu-Hyun Chae, I wouldn't throw out those tuxedos in case Mr Nobel comes calling in a few years.

You're a nano physicist? You so seem taller on camera. Seriously, thank you for going over this topic - I knew my skepticism wasn't unjustified. Thank you for your work!

@cybersecuritydeclassified4793

8 ай бұрын

Cletus?

Love your coverage of this, thanks for being so even handed.

Newton and Einstein have been our go-to for gravity, but do these findings suggest their theories are starting to breakdown? What do you think?

@bsadewitz

8 ай бұрын

​@@ZuluknobHow do you know that the plank length isn't actually just the smallest length that our theories can make sense of?

@eytansuchard8640

8 ай бұрын

Hi Dr. Ben Miles, Not only mass generates gravity, also positive charge does and beyond what is predicted by mainstream physics. See "Electro-gravity via geometric chronon field and on the origin of mass" in ResearchGate . This version is much more correct than the peer reviewed 2017 one. Electrons do the opposite. This however, cannot be used to generate a Hermann Bondi inertial/gravitational dipole in high voltage capacitors because of anti-alignment of induced dipoles in the dielectric layer. There should be a dynamic solution though. Notice that the acceleration field can look like a Tzvi Scarr - Yaakov Friedman acceleration matrix and it covers two perpendicular 2 dimensional acceleration planes. If the 4x4 matrix is B then B v/c = a/c^2 where v is a normalized velocity, c is the speed of light and B(i,j)=-B(j,i) and 'a' is 4-acceleration. Near drains and sources and with complex formalism, the model is a competitor to spinor theory. B is anti-symmetric and is a rotation differential although it can also represent boosts. In general, the acceleration field is the description of the energy of the electric field. With 1,2,3 generalizations of the Reeb fields as accelerations in even dimensions (unlike the nowadays restriction to contact manifolds, the original formulation by Georges Reeb was more general), these fields have symmetries U(1), SU(2), SU(3) and in the more general case SU(4), however SU(4) does not use a Robert Geroch time function. In the other cases, the information on material fields is stored in the geometry of spacetime foliations so-to-speak. Also, the foliations, see action in (64), offer a decomposition of an observer spacetime manifold without using Wheeler DeWitt decomposition and without using Ashtekar variables. The action in (64) does not require the orthogonal formalism of spinors. Kind regards, Eytan Suchard.

@bsadewitz

8 ай бұрын

I once believed that the plank length was like a pixel, but I learned that the KZread videos which described it that way shouldn't have, heh.

@MyMy-tv7fd

8 ай бұрын

'The glory of science is to progress.' CS Lewis

@eytansuchard8640

8 ай бұрын

Also as a nanoscale physicist, can you corroborate my prediction of a resonance of 41.87524 eV of a neutral particle out of Muon decays? It could be that very rarely two photons of 20.9376 eV will be emitted or that two such particles will annihilate releasing 41.87524 eV UV. Not sure about it.

16 Sigma!? That's so many sigmas!

It's not gravity, it's magnetism holding things together. Or more accurately it's a combination of both. The gravity causes the orbits but the magnetism causes the accelerated speeds and holds things together against centrifugal forces. Black holes rotate and generate huge magnetic fields that extend beyond the galaxies they inhabit, affecting every star in them.

@MikeJones-wp2mw

8 ай бұрын

Seriously, why has no one figured out that we already know enough about black holes, gravity, magnetic fields, fusion limits, electrical power generation, and we have observational data. Why is it that we assume that some laws of the universe aren't applying to black holes or on a galactic or universal scale. We already know that every object in the universe exerts gravitational forces on every other object in the universe. It's just that the bigger thing, that's closer, will be the one you notice being interacted with. We never knew our solar system was orbiting the core of the galaxy until we did and before that we didn't even know we orbited the sun. But we can be orbiting many things at the same time and not even know it. Our galaxy is orbiting something, and that thing is orbiting something else. It might just be the center of gravity for a bunch of things, that are orbiting each other. The sun generates a magnetic field larger than the sun, the lines of magnetism extend out into space way way further. Imagine what a black hole is generating, considering it could have millions or billions of times the mass of the sun and considering that the more a black hole feeds the faster it rotates. Knowing that fusion stops at iron unless you can add energy to the system, in a black hole the explosive fission reaction is squelched by the gravity. So it's my theory that whatever makes up the singularity is, it has to be a ferrous metal. Galaxies function as giant generators, spewing electromagnetic energy out of the black hole in many ways that we can observe depending on the galaxy and it's composition. To me it seems kinda obvious, I don't know why nobody else sees it.

Just a simple question, what about the energy stored (as mass) in the angular momentum of the galaxy system? Has that been accounted for?

I really appreciate the way you deal with these kinds of topics. Yu don't gatekeep "the truth" nor do you look for the sensational. On the topic at hand, dark matter is a fascinating thing, because it means there is something missing in our understanding, which is always fun!

Well done .. best explanation I've seen.

Been trying to prove Einstein wrong for a century and always end up falling down.

journalism in general - and now even science journalism - as we were taught to define it - hardly exists today due to - mainly - corporate greed / corrupted - influences - excellent - thanks

Science is honest or it is not science. It doesn’t matter if Einstein was wrong. What matter’s is that Einstein was honest.

How do they compensate for the tilt of the orbital plane relative to the line of sight? Using statistics, assuming random orbital inclinations etc, is going to be rifddled with pitfalls.

Interestingly, Newton's formula for gravity works within the heliosphere, but where that formula breaks is outside the heliosphere. There was an alternate theory in cosmology called the Electric Universe theory, also known as Plasma Cosmology, which was very popular until its main proponent had some personal squabble with a higher-up at their university. Then the theory was considered taboo and the gravity-only theory took over. The idea was that plasma fields could also be involved in holding galaxies together. Since the realm in which Newton's formula breaks is outside the heliosphere, it would make sense that gravity perfectly explains the orbits of planets, but doesn't fully explain the interactions between star systems. So it may be that gravity isn't broken, but there's another force involved at that scale - without having to invent ghost matter! After all, we know that there's tremendous energy in deep space. If there were such a force holding star systems together, would that exert some force on the heliosphere boundary? Could that boundary pressure then exert a force upon the sun, similar to the pressure which the ground effect exerts on very low-flying objects? If so, could we detect this as either extra pressure within the solar wind on one side of the sun, or deviations in the bow shock?

This is fascinating information, as a back yard physicist I love new ideas, brain food. Thank you for sharing.

Very good deep dive into this part of astrophysics! Thank you!

An excellent and timely cautionary presentation reminding us that the only quantity which matters is that of checkable and established results. Given that human lives are quite short and careers even shorter there is a scurry to make a mark and one of the laziest ways is to be a contrarian. It is a dangerous addiction which results in more talk but far less consistent research.

We are thinking too 3 dimensionally. Dark matter could be normal matter that is hidden in higher spacial dimensions, relative to an observer. This would rectify the conundrum of missing mass & the spinning of the rim of galaxies being too fast. It also explains entanglement; entangled particles can use higher dimensions to stay connected. They're only at a distance from each other in the 1st three dimensions but are connected using higher spacial dimensional portals. Have you heard of the TARDIS?

I first like your concern . Your bold presentation on developing front. If we consider Natural forces are themodynamics origine good data , good volume of data , high Sigma will take us statistical mechanics. MOND is a model of dynamic body when reference is acceleration is very very low. Einstein based model is zero weight I.e weight lessness . Key to equivalence. GR is molded on Newton's postulates. Can data mechanics isolate universal effects. Will Higgs field show up with variable constant. Thank you.

Your nailing it on the wide binary orbit measurement.....and also therefore also galactic arms and galactic rotation since rotation that is also rotations

Is an inverse linear law of gravitation consistent with results of the Cavendish experiment? I had assumed those were sufficiently precise to eliminate any possibility other than an inverse square law. Could it be that the range of gravitational forces measured in Cavendish experiments are too small or too large for the difference between inverse linear and inverse square laws to be apparent?

Unfortunately, so many “science” web-sites, channels, and journalism tend towards “click bait”, and “rip n’ read” research to do their reports. Witness the recent summer of craziness over LK99. Seems like people want to jump on anything. Thanks for taking a sober, sane approach with a little doubt. Skepticism and challenge and opposing views helps to keep science sane.

Well done. You've earned a new subscriber.

@DrBenMiles

8 ай бұрын

Welcome!

I agree. That’s a big problem in the science journalism that unfortunately seems to be affecting the science world itself too!

@RoxyWrites

8 ай бұрын

The world is arguably causal. Nothing exists as a disconnected topic or industry. Neither science or science journalism are unaffected by science or science journalism in the same way you cannot separate melting glaciers and Brazilian forest fires from climate change in other parts of the world. The trouble is not with the fact that these things affect each other but with our thinking processes, our biases, and our expectations. We cannot continue to behave as if the world is compartmentalized. You could easily make the case that if not for Daniel Ellsberg whistleblowing and revealing the Pentagon Papers and 30 years of coverup and Woodward and Bernstein not helping to reveal the Watergate scandal and how far up it went, democracy in the U.S. would arguably not be democracy anymore. Everything is connected and there is nothing that does not affect everything else, no matter how slight.

Is there anything surrounding these galaxies that may be having an effect on the stars gravity..?

The issue I have with DM is if it is real then its distribution should be even because if it uneven and causes lensing it would become impossible to determine how many DM fields a ray of light has traversed thereby making all astronomical distance calculations non determinable. Because to determine the calculated distance would require knowing every single DM field that the light from a distant object travelled through and for each DM field calculating the effect on the travelled light. So Dm can only be accepted at the sacrifice of distance calculations which then renders all other observations uncertain!

It is very appealing to say dark matter is a too easy solution for an equation that doesn't hold but is too consistent in too many ways which MOND still isn't as you pointed out. Maybe you can make a video about the Bullet cluster which is one of the strong examples against MOND and try to explain what it means to say that the predictions of dark matter are self consistent? Thanks for the great content you have. As a physicst I really appreciate it!

A question: if a confidence of 5 Sigma already represents a 1 in 3 million chance that a result is wrong, how many degrees of certainty does 16 Sigma repesent? In my understanding a confidence level of 6 Sigma is as high as it gets. So? Where does this come from?

Red shift being used to determine acceleration of distant objects, when light could be red shifted also for other reasons (e.g when it passes through clouds of ionized gas), could explain some of this discrepancy without the need for Mond or dark matter

@kylelochlann5053

8 ай бұрын

So, you think physicists are unaware of a state matter other than solid or liquid? Is this really your understanding?

@TheLastGingerNinja

8 ай бұрын

Not exactly but I think there a bit of knowledge siloing. Each topic in physics is so complex, takes years to understand and master, so there might not be as much cross field discussion as is needed for a better understanding, up until recently. The effect I'm talking about is better known in plasma physics, maybe less so outside that. The different groups seem to be collaborating more so I've seen quite a few articles now questioning more established hypotheses

@kylelochlann5053

8 ай бұрын

@@TheLastGingerNinja There are of course plasma physicists working in astronomy and we know that plasma cannot account for the expansion which has been falsified by countless observations and measurements.

We have a big problem with sensationalism in science journalism. Videos with titles like "Have physicists proved that gravity is breaking down?" are part of the problem.

There is already an interpretative problem with the Sun-Earth system: is the Earth attracted to the Sun from where it is now, or from where it was 8 minutes earlier? In other words, shouldn't the propagation-delay of gravity introduce a torque into the system?

Wasn't a paper with the exact opposite conclusion using the same Gaia data set (with more N) just a while ago? Yeah, yeah there was. The "wide binaries" selected for this paper also may have included triple star systems and more.

It seems we need a half dozen of Gaia satellites at the extremes of the orbit of the Neptune, so to build an interferometer at level of the Solar System. An astronomical observatory on the dark side of the Moon would be of great help, as the observation platform would be much more stable, use better cryogenics, and would be easily serviceable and scalable in the future. Thank you for the great explanation Prof. Miles...

Maybe we don”t understand very well the bending of space and is the Plank length not a constant 🤔

I honestly think the more we try to understand reality the more it will be beyond our grasp. Why reality exists at all is not understanding it but accepting and embracing it! As a species our collective human goals determines our future fate!🙂

Interesting video. Clearly there is a gap in over understanding in the fundamentals of how gravity works. Finding a quantum theory of gravity may help, but like you I am more comfortable with the concept of "dark matter" over modified gravity, even if we have yet to find any dark matter, other than data that suggests it is there (including gravitational lensing) or somethings there that simulates mass (perhaps mass blead through from Everett's many-worlds theory). Modified gravity feels like curving fitting an equation to the data rather than materially expanding our understanding of how gravity works.

@kylelochlann5053

8 ай бұрын

That is exactly what modified gravity does - it curve fits and explains nothing.

Great video!

Jwst has made us go from guessing to seeing realty as it is scientists are scratching there heads currently lol😂

Just document what's happening, then theorize on what's going on & why.

How is MOND different from a Bran-Dicke metric ?

Bad science journalism, love that phrase

@DJF1947

8 ай бұрын

Question is: is there any other sort?

I agree with you. Although GR IS incomplete, there is not enough evidence to dismiss dark matter. After all, we all like a story where the "Dark" is greater than the visible :)

Are those supposed to be ellipses?

Another way to analyze the data would be to assume classical reletivistic gravity is correct and estimate the error in the data.

I think this is a case of "More Data Needed." Fascinating stuff but too early to know if it's true - or not true.

The 16 sigma result data mostly measures stars that are too close to notice MOND effects

That makes sense since we need to include entanglement, which could include a quantum field....

10:15 In the Planck system F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2, that is, gravity~strong interaction*. This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2. Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl) : with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)/m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n, where n=0,1,2,3..., number of quanta. Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl): defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting window between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**. P.S. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k* to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k*; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k*, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk*, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-е^2). ------------------- *) - GR predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k*; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. **) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w) = -[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-(w/wpl)c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment.

how does it break down ? if we got parallel universa close to us then theier gravity might cause vallies and mountains on or universa on that huge miniscule level

4:44 There is an explanation, that matches something that I wanted to explore. It goes to the nature of space and physics. Not to state the answer, an multiplex of effects could lead to an affect that changes the rate of acceleration. I was hoping that new horizons would go further, faster and sooner, but seemed to be deliberately geared to never get further than the current furthest probe. There are plans to orbital test a fusion drive and warp engine in 2027. We need to be preparing a probe design to go out and map gravity and the ort cloud now, and fund accelerated development and use of the drive, to launch such a probe in 2027. Even then, unless a successful warp drive is had, it will take years to complete the minimal distance of such a mission. I see no evidence of an Ort cloud which technically too close to the Alpha Centauri system to orbit out system. So, it would be very helpful to find such. We have the ability to adapt a test bed into a robust probe system, and too launch using a current commercial provider, such as Space X, to nearly eliminate the rocket design stage and cost. Once in LEO, it can use conventional acceleration technique to move itself out of Earth orbit. We already know enough about probe design and flight planning to do this. What we do need though, is to make the system last for 10-20 years, if just a fusion design, and slingshot the sun, if needed. However, there are various magnetic sail proposals that are high speed, which could also be explored. We have been sitting on our hands long enough, as far as interstellar probes are concerned.

I am thinking positif and negatif energy is distributed in the fabric of space. A galaxy is big and far enough to treat as a closed system. So in the galaxy positif energy is collected from center to the edge of the galaxy. So we can treat gravity is positive energy. Its effect decreases by distance while the negative energy or dark energy increases. So the galaxy will be kept together. However, I am not a physicist but I love it.

Really interesting. More data required! Different experiments to verify the observations. Newton and Einstein are rarely wrong.

@scottk3292

8 ай бұрын

I'm not disagreeing with you that they're rarely wrong, but I've heard of an interesting "miss" by Einstein. Apparently Einstein based his theories off Planck's first set of equations, which Planck was dissatisfied with. Planck released his second set of equations, which account for zero-point energy, but Einstein didn't want to revamp all his work. According to Mizio Kaku, Einstein said that the zero point energy field would never account for much, which Kaku points to as Einstein's greatest mistake. Some of this I read about from a website which promotes the Stochastic Electro-Dynamic, and I don't claim that either I, or my sources are unbiased.

@kylelochlann5053

8 ай бұрын

@@scottk3292 Your understanding of history is entirely wrong.

@scottk3292

8 ай бұрын

@@kylelochlann5053 Fascinating. Which history book are you sourcing from? My understanding comes from physicists and climatologists who were fired from their jobs for recognizing new theories which challenged the "we know everything" mainline thinking. Of course those newer theories were often later proved to be very valid, but the history of science is just littered with people like Lambert Dolphin, who was fired from SRI because he recognized the Stochastic ElectroDynamic as something warranting more investigation. Or does your version of history say that he just "fell out of a window"?

@kylelochlann5053

8 ай бұрын

@@scottk3292 From Einstein. Einstein was a prolific writer of books and personal letters. Einstein would get a thought and write a fellow physicist about it and there thousands and thousands upon thousands of pages of letters that he wrote which have been made publicly available to everyone. We know what Einstein was thinking because he wrote it down and everyone is welcome to read.

Pretty sure gravity is the result of matter's displacement of the underlying space-field or reality-field, and as a result of that displaced field attempting to return to its original universal coordinate, we find ourselves pushed inward toward the center of whichever mass is generating the gravity. Time then is a result of that displacement moving rapidly from one universal coordinate to the other. It was revealed to me in a dream, but in another 100 years this will be generally accepted.

I love science, and have taken a couple of physics courses, but I'm not even close to educated enough on this subject to render an intelligent opinion. The dark matter thing, and _especially_ the dark energy thing has always seemed a little fishy to me. Anyway, I'm looking forward with great anticipation to the resolution of this question.

@AlexisOmnis

8 ай бұрын

I think dark matter is normal matter that's hidden, relative to an observer, in higher spacial dimensions. This could explain many things, like why stars etc. on the rims of galaxies don't fly off. We can't find evidence of enough gravity causing objects that are needed in order for objects in the rims of galaxies to be spinning as fast as they are, without flying off into intergalactic space. The needed amount of gravity causing objects could really be normal matter but which is hidden from us in higher spacial dimensions. It would also explain why we haven't found signs of intelligent life because maybe they are hiding their star systems in higher spacial dimensions to hide themselves from potential alien threats. Some black holes could really be fake, created by aliens hiding everying inside a spherical area of space surrounding their star systems & they use a spherical shape to hide their star systems as it looks more natural than, say, hiding a cube area around their star system. It's possible that dark energy is the exact opposite process so that, instead of hiding an amount of space, it is being made to look like there is more space between objects, as in an illusion that is relative to an observer. The question is who wants us to think space is expanding exponentially? 🤔 😱

Einstein knew that he was wrong. His theory was close, but no cigar.

Gravity is not broken..just that the space we think as empty has an astral viscosity to it due to which the results are such. Without that viscosity the galaxies wont hold there spiral shape. Put some dust in the water and rotate it. Gravity alone will give the perfect results but gravity is not alone that is binding the celestial objects......

I think the closer we get to the solutions to our many problems the closer we will get to vibration and frequency being connected to the energy and mass equation

The desperate need for funding and prestige causes sensationalism, and objectivity soon falls by the wayside 😢 The media portrays science as if it were a game, where both sides must be equal, regardless of the weight of evidence. Just look at the climate coverage 🤬 Still, we should always be skeptical, as scientists are also subject to group-think and human frailty 🤔 Thank you for your objectivity and infotainment 👍🏻

If the meme "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is valid then a corollary to that would be "If something can not be categorically proven wrong then you must concede that it is theoretically possible. However unlikely." Dark matter is the modern day equivalent of "Here be Dragons".

@scottk3292

8 ай бұрын

I've always called it "ghost matter" but maybe "duct tape matter" is more appropriate since it's just a patch for a broken theory.

I wonder if given a black hole with of a specific degree of spin, and mass that it could interact with other matter seemingly far away by existing partially in a dimension of de sitter, or anti de sitter space. In a way that creates the same sort of unity across a whole system like liquid helium has. Gravitational-Bose-Einstein-condensates across paths of interconnected regions. Idk I’m not a physicist or anything. Just wondering what the reason could be that they have said some things the jwst sees, are galaxies with seemingly no dark matter/ energy.

Wonder what Sabine says ?

imagine quantum entanglement was physical. like an elastic band, and the yes the universe is expanding but, will reach its elastic limit and start travelling back. Like an elastic band. Could we argue that gravity is more a case of stuff being physically connected to what, for the purposes of this layman explanation is called “Quantum Elastic” Did I just make a new term up? This would then, if quantum elastic exists, would prove my belief that light is absolutely not, the fastest thing in the universe.

@christophermullins7163

8 ай бұрын

Light is the fastest natural thing.

@jobbingactor

8 ай бұрын

@@christophermullins7163 I’m no physicist so forgive the ignorance but if two entangled particles separated by a billion light light years can move in harmony my luddite brain can only imagine A. They are actually connected by my theoretical quantum elastic. B: Something faster than light is communicating symmetry between the pairs or C: This entire universe is a pre programmed simulation.

@christophermullins7163

8 ай бұрын

@@jobbingactor entangled particles do not send information in any way.. this is why we cannot have quantum transmission of data. What I was thinking is that there is some technology such as the "G-engine" that is being hidden from the public(for good reason) the ability to warp space is all that is needed to travel faster than light. I guess what I'm saying is.. space can absolutely travel that light. You just need to be in that space.

@jobbingactor

8 ай бұрын

I don’t believe we as humans can build or imagine anything other than what we are. Thus, the steps forward into AI and I expect AI & Human integration would lead to a human that is “all we are” as advances and can establish everything we know and act on it simultaneously. From that point us as humans have completed our step and returned us full circle to what we are. A simulation. One of many, each identical with one single anomaly. The result of that being, total understanding, but then. At that very point of total understanding, the AI will have something it never had before. I don’t know, buts it’s fun to consider. It’s just frightening that we obviously know so very little about anything. Thank the universe we have physicists to find out.

Have you sean the paper about cosmic expansion and red shift being an illusion no dark matter or dark energy worth a look.

@DrBenMiles

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the recommendation, will take a look

Descartes' (Cartesian) Physics solves this easily. Before Newtonian Physics, there was Cartesian Physics. Cartesian Physics says that there are 3 kinds of gravity: mass-vortex-based, star-vortex-based, and galaxy-vortex-based. Instead of particles being "excitations in a quantum field", Cartesian Physics calls them "vortices in the aether-ocean" Galaxy rotation and the expansion of spacetime are galaxy-vortex-based. Newton's inverse square law is mass-vortex-based, as the ratio of a mass-vortex to another mass-vortex. So the 'missing mass problem' is solved by the ratio of star-vortices to a galaxy-vortex. There is no need for AQUAL or MOND. The 5 sigma variation is accounted for by Cartesian Physics, as being caused by the ratio of a star-vortex to another star-vortex. The 16 sigma variation happens because some stars have a more solid material core than others. Not all stars are the same. Cartesian Physics also solves the Hubble Tension, dark matter, dark energy, nuclear fusion, and many other things. Cartesian Physics solves all.

As I'm sure you have discovered, bold headlines and startling content, generate more views, then their subtle and nuanced counterparts.

When the conclusions are the only thing talked about then I am not going to believe the experiment.

I'm very skeptical of dark matter-- it is reminiscent of the ether arguments of the 1800s-- and I'd love to see a better explanation out there. That being said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and we don't have that either way. Given a medium-sized statistical dataset and a free hand at selection criteria, a competent research can probably cook up however many sigmas you'd like.

Mass/matter dosn't create gravity Conciousness creates attraction/gravity wich creates mass/matter

@kylelochlann5053

8 ай бұрын

We know from direct measurement that gravity is not a force of attraction.

I can’t believe you did quantum entanglement dirty like that. Science have shown that some particles are are still connected over vast distances and can even be used for instantaneous data transfer. That alone throws a monkey wrench into the theory of gravity, and add supporting evidence towards interconnectivity and time space torsion.

Hello Ben and thanks for this video. -------- You´re referring to Newtons 16 sigma measurement, but in galactic orbital realms Newtons sigma is ZERO, hence the 5 sigma measurement of Kyu-Hyon Chae is the logical and correct one. ----------- And it so happens that the Solar System is a part of the orbital motion in our Milky Way galaxy, following the observed galactic rotation curve, so the laws of the Solar System cannot logically be separated from the laws of the Milky Way galaxy. ------------ I agree Newtons 16 sigma calculations to be correct for the planetary motions in our Solar System, but they are based on wrong astrophysical and cosmological assertations. ------- Newton simply inserted mathematical equations onto already known planetary orbital motions and built his celestial laws of motion which failed on the galactic scales. ---------- This more than indicate a Newtonian failure on his terrestrial based gravity ideas as well.

@ivornelsson2238

8 ай бұрын

BTW: I don´t know why they are fiddling with binary stars at all. The galactic rotation curve is ALREADY mesured to contradict standing gravitational ideas since almost a century ago.

I really dont get how they can try to measure anything that is anywhere out in space and expect to be accurate when our entire solar system is flying through space extremely fast. Seems like it would make measuring exactly near impossible.

It’s a rush to publish, just too soon.

Geometry measurements are absolute and hard numbers. Multi body systems will never work out with prebutations, resonance changes, and random external bodies entering and leaving the systems, changing barycenters and resonances. Arcs and parabola changes, smbh centers will be replaced with black hole swarms,..... You just cannot get fixed orbits and conics and galactic arms or clusters from that.

@daleb5967

8 ай бұрын

Also,. Bodies we see don't include bodies connected that are not visible. Black matter was an obtuse theory all along.

They seem to neglect variant collective action of massive bodies..

I wish somebody would give a concise view of the many things possible with the mastery and manipulation of gravity. When we finally figure out gravity, the Universe becomes wide open for exploration.

My favourite physicist's name is Vesto M Slipher. Just felt like sharing.

@DrBenMiles

8 ай бұрын

Awesome, I'll add it to the list

Thank you very much! A very important topic for deep open global brainstorming. Theoretical physicists have proven that there is a big problem in physics with the metaphysical foundations of physics. Therefore, John A. Wheeler left the following philosophical testament to theoretical physicists: "We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." Without answering this question, it is impossible to understand the nature of gravity. And this means that we need a new look at matter, its ontological structure. "Formulas" are always "clippings" from the existence of the Universe as a Whole. More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of the "Self -Aware Universe" (V.Nalimov, 1996). In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" (2018). The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process gives a new look at matter. MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms and structures are born. There are three and only three absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, absolute Continuum) + absolute motion (vortical, circular, absolute Discretuum) + absolute becoming (absolute wave, absolute DisContinuum). What is especially important: each absolute form of the existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions ( 9 gnoseological dimensions). It is necessary to “dig” deeper into ontology in order to “grasp” the metanoumenon - ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "nothing" that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (enteleschia, nous, Aristotelian mind, prime mover). Therefore, we must write not "space-time", but "SPACE-MATTER/MEMORY-TIME". Fundamental science requires a Big Ontological revolution in the metaphysical / ontological basis of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics". Any theory that claims to be called "fundamentally" must be ontologically justified (the ontological basification of the theory). The new physics is "Ontological physics". John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?"... "Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers." A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”

That one A.I. Squidward meme is starting to make waaaay too much sense...

I find it hard to believe that any law of nature would follow an ideal mathematical function like 1/x^2.

@haroldbn6816

8 ай бұрын

Not really. 1/r^2 conserves a quantity while something spreads uniformly in 3D

@maxp3141

8 ай бұрын

Yes, anything but 1/r^2 would be weird - at least in large scale. But something like that does happen with the strong nuclear force: when quarks are pulled apart the nuclear force tries to pull them back with a force which is constant in distance, so pulling them apart creates linearly increasing potential energy, causing confinement of the quarks. This happens because the gluons that carry the force interact with each other forming a tube between the quarks. If something like this would happen in gravity then I think it would mean that the effect would be different between elliptical and disc-like galaxies and they would had noticed it already.

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

If you look at a light source you will find that its intensity drops off as 1/x^2, so it is completely natural and found all over. It is just the consequence of a surface area on a sphere increasing with distance, so something touching that spherical surface (such as light) is spread out and reduced by the same factor.

To quote a movie - "Baby steps Bob, baby steps".

For g values under 0.6 nm/s^2 the range was observed to be about 30% larger. That's very tiny even for the far away galaxies around the outskirts of a galaxy to affect its measured rotation speed. This is more close to an statistical or systematic error or something that was not taken into account or falsely interpreted. I don't think the author of this paper did an exhaustive analysis if the

We need vampires to study this for centuries. 😂

Gravity's breaking down? You mean I'm losing weight? Cool 😎!

@jedahn

8 ай бұрын

You'll be gaining weight. Imagine a dinosaur falling on its ribs.

4:25 - “As it orbits between us and the Sun…” Nope, that’s L1 (but you knew that of course! 😁) Great video otherwise!

I love physics but despite my curiosity I often wonder if our pursuits in physics can be equated to teaching an ant how to build a rocket ship. The ant can never do it. The ant can never even understand it.

I hope they really stress in the reporting the statistical nature of these papers. Doubt they will.

but all of this only applies at extremely large distances, where we haven't gone yet, and has no bearing on where we have gone so far ?

HI , I am from india

@DrBenMiles

8 ай бұрын

Hello 👋

@memofromessex

8 ай бұрын

I am from Essex :)

@s_r_v

8 ай бұрын

I am from my mother's womb

I suppose I think about the sensationalism in science journalism differently. I agree it gives people the wrong impression. But I also think that in so doing, it draws other scientists in, who may not otherwise have seen or engaged with the topic, to evaluate and think critically about the research. It also means your rebuttals need to be sharp and gets you thinking about next steps. Apropo this video. Isn''t that the scientific process in action?

@sorak185

8 ай бұрын

It is irresponsible to report on a fringe theory using a curated data set, and analyzed by exclusively people who support said theory. As awesome as it is when science looks at a result and says "huh, that's weird...", this is not that. This is lying to the public. This is intentionally ignoring the *immense* body of work that contradicts the result of the paper, purely to get views. Clickbait journalism is dangerous and needs to be called out and shut down.

Doesn't change much as it will take centuries to ADD up!

MOND says stars accelerate slowly over time. I came up with a slow but constant acceleration of 0.00000482 in/s² (0.0000122 cm/s²) When you take the age of the star or galaxy and divide it by it's velocity you get a perfect 10,000 to 1 ratio between age and velocity. This happens with all stars and galaxies. The older they are the faster they're traveling. The stars furthest from the black hole are much older than the stars orbiting close to the black hole. Take for instance our own solar system. It's 4,500,000,000 years old and has an orbital velocity of 536,000 mi/h. According to Newtonian physics it should have an orbital velocity of 86,000 mi/h. So there appears to be mass missing from the equations because there is a discrepancy of 450,000 mi/h. If we take it's age and divide by it's velocity we get 4,500,000,000 divided by 450,000 = 10,000. This is a 10,000 to 1 ratio between it's age and velocity. Meaning it's a slow acceleration of 0.00000482 in/s² (0.0000122 cm/s²) it explains the velocity discrepancy of 450,000 mi/h. We can do the same calculation to the Milky Way galaxy too. The Milky Way is 13,700,000,000 years old. It should be sitting relatively still because there is not enough nearby galaxies to cause it to move. But according to the redshift data coming from the CMB the Milky Way is moving at 1,370,000 mi/h towards what's called the great attractor. But if we take it's age and divide it by it's velocity we get, 13,700,000,000 / 1,370,000 = 10,000. It has the same 10,000 to 1 ratio between it's age and velocity. Meaning our solar system and our Milky Way galaxy have the same slow accelerations of 0.00000482 in/s² (0.0000122 cm/s²). There is no missing mass. There is only this slow but constant acceleration happening over time. It also explains why the stars and satellite galaxies have not lost cohesion with the galaxies overall mass. surely they should have reached an escape velocity a long time ago. But if this extra velocity is produced by a slow acceleration of just 0.00000482 in/s² (0.0000122 cm/s²), then it's not enough of a jolt to force the star or satellite galaxies from it's orbital trajectory. The star or satellite galaxy would never be able to escape because the overall velocity increases slowly over a long time. The accelerations are not rapid in a short period of time, which is required to reach an escape velocity. It also explains why dark matter doesn't affect young stars, young galaxies, planets, moons, comets, asteroids and other small bodies in our solar system. Yet, it seems to affect the velocity of our sun traveling 450,000 mi/h faster than what can be explained by Newtonian physics alone. It's a simple equation that explains the motion of both our solar system and the Milky Way galaxy.

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

How do you explain that young stars move at the same speed as older stars at the same distance from the centre of the galaxy? In fact most stars in the galaxy move at about the same speed of around 100km/s no matter their age, and the gas they formed from doesn't magically change speed.

@ronaldkemp3952

8 ай бұрын

​@@tonywells6990 Simple. The stars and satellite galaxies get older and older the further they are from the supermassive black hole. The older they are the faster they'll be traveling. Their ages and velocities would progressively be the same ratio to their distance from the black hole. the stars according to reports by ALMA radio telescope are less than 10,000 years old orbiting close to the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy. The oldest bodies are found in the halo and at the extents of the Milky Way arms and the satellite galaxies orbiting the Milky way on a different plane than the galaxy disk of stars. The oldest objects traveling too fast to be explained are all located far from the black hole. The young stars close to the black hole are not affected. Did you know our solar system is receding away from the black hole at around 900,000 mi/h while it orbits the galaxy center at 536,000 mi/h? I can clearly see why the spiral arms form. This evidence completely contradicts the predictions made by general relativity, the laws of motion, the big bang, cosmic inflation and the evolutionary cosmological model of the universe. You won't hear mainstream cosmologists say anything about it. Not until they are able to figure out why. And no, this hypothesis is not as magical as the dark matter hypothesis, which can't be measured, can't be observed, doesn't radiate heat, EM fields or light, doesn't exert any other indication except stars and galaxies move way to fast to be explained by theory or laws of motion. Just click my icon. The books I published are listed on my About page. You can read all about the solution I published in 2021.

Q: There is sth wrong with Newton’s universal gravity, because movements of planets around stars is also influenced by the rotation and rotationspeed of the stars? Persons like Einstein and Zwicky understood this, but didn’t become popular by explaining that this was a serious shortcoming in Newon’s universal gravity? While Zwicky assumed an invisible force (dark matter) as ‘source of gravity’ to explain puzzling movements of planets around stars, Einstein came up with warped spacetime with fourdimensional motions (including rotation), whereby Einstein realised he knew better than Newton. Or not?

Short answer: NO

It’s been known fir a long time Newtonian is just fine until velocity is very great, passing about 1/10 speed of light, or gravitation great enough to cause great velocity.

Time tick comes into this in my opinion

Why did we get rid of Epicycles??? Wait a second… dark energy, dark matter, string theory, Modified gravity. We have a new name

It does not go to zero.. it’s just decreases to be extremely small

Plasma cosmology is accepted as a viable alternative to the big bang by the IEEE. Perhaps Coulomb's law is being demonstrated because a recent article from SciTech daily showed turbulence in plasma makes the magnetic fields in deep space. Since space is not an empty vacuum but teeming with ionized particles, neutrals, and free electrons this turbulence would have electric currents which we know generate magnetic fields. Then you have Lorentz forces and spin from the right hand rule. All because of charge and not mass which goes back to my point of Coulomb's law instead of the universal law of gravitation. 🤔

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

It's not actually a viable alternative to the big bang, according to the experts.

@roberthawthorne8396

8 ай бұрын

@@tonywells6990 do you mean "experts" as astrophysicists? If so then that is true. However the experts themselves admit to a crisis in cosmology and it's because of the lack of mass while strong magnetic fields are present. Which cycles back to plasma cosmology. Compare the equidistant dust rings of Wolf-Rayet star 140 and the fact that no value explanation exists the geometry of those rings gravitationally. However the SAFIRE Project has replicated those exact structures because of capacitive double layers which were predicted by the Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvéin. 🤔

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

@@roberthawthorne8396But plasma cosmology is total nonsense.

@roberthawthorne8396

8 ай бұрын

@@tonywells6990 according to Wikipedia perhaps. But one cannot reject the accurate predictions and replicated observations that have come from plasma physics. So much for dark matter.

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

@@roberthawthorne8396According to anyone with a physics degree.

So, we know that we are wrong about gravity? We use the formulas describing our understanding of gravity all the time to do all kinds of things, and those formulas are wrong? Just not wrong enough to be noticeable at our scale? It's like things get weird at quantum scales... maybe there is a similar mechanism to quantum effects that only operate at gargantuan scales?

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

We know that gravity produces nonsensical results at the smallest quantum size possible, but that is an unimaginably tiny size, about a billionth of a trillionth of the size of a proton, or at the centre of a black hole (the singularity, if that even exists). We can't even measure gravity on nanoscales because it is such a weak force between atoms, but we know it works very accurately on the scale between millimetres and the size of the observable universe.

@blogintonblakley2708

8 ай бұрын

@@tonywells6990 I guess I'm confused, then. I understood that galaxies are not acting correctly. Stars are orbiting too fast. I didn't think we could explain that.

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

@@blogintonblakley2708 We explain that with dark matter. There are some alternatives to dark matter, such as MOND (extra acceleration at further distances), but none of the alternatives seem to work for any other large scale structures in the universe which means dark matter is most likely out there and gravity probably isn't weird.

@blogintonblakley2708

8 ай бұрын

@@tonywells6990 Okay I think I get it now. So gravity isn't weird there is just more of it from somewhere than we expect. And the somewhere it's coming from is alleged to be dark matter, not a fundamental problem with our understanding of gravity.

@tonywells6990

8 ай бұрын

@@blogintonblakley2708 Yes. Of course that could be wrong, but there is no known alternative that fits anywhere near as well as the simplistic 'cold dark matter' model.