Astronomy Debate: Dark Matter or Modified Gravity?

[@SandyCameron]

This is so well done. Thanks very much to all three of you. More contenet like this please.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much for your comment, it is much appreciated

[@adamw86]

I have been going down this rabbit hole for the past few months and this is by far the best conversation I have seen on the topic. Thanks for organizing the excellent video!

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome, I'm glad someone appreciated it.!

[@AndyTernay]

Thank you very much; as a layman this really helped me comprehend the key components of each theory. Interesting and thought provoking. Also appreciated how respectful this was; a nice break from the more common type of internet ‘debates.’

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks, well done for finding it!

[@jkonrad]

Great listen. It’s remarkable that these thinkers can continuously describe phenomenon that usually requires a deep knowledge of math and physics in relatable language, for hours on end. And great moderation by Phil, who clarifies points that need it, and expands the conversation into beneficial areas. Kudos to all! I’m no more or less convinced of either theory, only satisfied that gifted thinkers and talented experimentalists are doing everything they can to come to a strong conclusion.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks so much for your comment. I couldn't agree more.

[@HebaruSan]

1:43:06 - The unexpected fireworks looked like an automatic filter responding to the speaker's two-thumbs-up gesture

[@PhilHalper1]

ah, thanks for this. It totally baffled me

[@Statevector]

Wow! Loved every minute! Looking forward to the neutrino measurements in the next few years.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks

[@punkypinko2965]

What a wonderful conversation. Thank you.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

That's excellent! It is so common to hear people criticizing standard cosmology because it is supposedly committed to the existence of this new kind of exotic matter particle, but what they fail to mention is that there are different views (perfectly compatible with standard cosmology), some of which don't need any new form of matter at all! I hope a lot of people watch this. Thanks Phil, White and McGaugh for this!

[@PhilHalper1]

your welcome, thanks for your comment.

[@alext5497]

Name one

[@Contagious93812]

Finally an interesting debate about reality, instead of those repetitive religious debates.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks, have you seen our other science debates?

[@pikkutonttu2697]

What a debate! Hats off!

[@Desertphile]

This was and is awesome: thank you.

[@PhilHalper1]

you are very welcome.

[@pinball1970]

This was great, the only thing it missed was a few slides for the equations to go along with some of the points. Perhaps a few derivations? Non maths people could skip those parts. Overall though, a great discussion.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks glad you liked it

[@tomasdvorak7487]

I liked it a lot. Especially the fact that it was a real debate, including going into technical stuff. Sure, I'm not a physicist and I can't fully understand it, but at least I get a sense of what the problem is and the complexity of the issue. So much better than the recent string theory love fest where the participants give each other A+'s and make idiots of the audience.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks for the comments. Glad you enjoyed it

[@trikkinikki970]

I love these videos though, this style is brilliant, instead of just one brilliant mind, bring two to discuss. Nothing quite like thoughts build on each other.

[@PhilHalper1]

Yes I find it quite frustrating that most science discussions are not actual discussions between opposing views.

[@joe-9256]

This is the best discussion I've seen on KZbin about this very important debate. Thank you for getting this podcast posted! That said, I find it very pathetic to watch the Physics community unable to produce any progress on the study of gravity or quantum mechanics. Plainly stated, there are no Physicists who possess the perfect combination of intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, and spiritual intelligence needed to publish a paper that corrects the silly, outdated Law of Gravity that Newton proposed hundreds of years ago. No doubt Newton was not stupid, but he had no means of accurately calibrating his equation. His equation does not even include propagation time when calculating the force of gravity. Duh! There are no instantaneous forces in nature. Remember we're not supposed to be able to travel faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Law of Gravity is stuck in the same quagmire as the Bible and other religious texts. They are clearly mumbo jumbo, but it is considered to be a mortal sin to update them to benefit humanity.

[@franks.6547]

Are there any cosmological models that consider a much larger scale than the observable universe? Leaving FLRW assumptions of homogeneity asside, maybe our cosmological constant Λ is just a local value? Is it conceivable that there was a bubbling soup of expanding an contracting regions outside - in a less symmetric 4D solution to Einstein's field equation? Could there be even multiple big bang regions stiched together in one metric each with their own arrow of time...?

[@PhilHalper1]

inflationary cosmology considers our universe as one poket or bubble universe of many, but I dont think that will help solve this problem though

[@franks.6547]

@@PhilHalper1 So is inflatIonary spacetime actually thought of as one continuous metric with all the bubbles in separate regions? For I'm not able interprete the popular animations in 3D+time. I was thinking of a classical solution of the field equation (at least conceptually), with less symmetry, and probably no global time coordinate of co-moving frames. If our universe appears flat and uniform on our largest observable scale only, it could make all kinds of twists and wrinkles outside without the drama of inflation. I that case, we just don't see enough to ever get a comprehensive picture, and dark energy could just have its arbitrary value with maybe some fluctuation in the 4D vincinity of our local big bang...

[@shawns0762]

Dark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein 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 (star 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. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. It has recently been confirmed in 5 very, very low mass galaxies to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities in the 1960's did the concept gradually became mainstream. There was clarity in astronomy before this happened.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks for this

[@gbtg6479]

to quote one of rap's greatest: dark matter, do we need it? what is it? where is it? how much?

[@EKDupre]

Do we need it do we need it?

[@PhilHalper1]

Forgive me ignorance, but who said that?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@EKDupre well we do need it or a modification of gravity

[@gbtg6479]

@@PhilHalper1 www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/weinberg.21/Rap/index.html

[@gbtg6479]

seems like YT does not let me post links but its "The Dark Matter Rap" by David Weinberg

[@deathwarmedover]

I'm under the impression that Mr. White has not read the recent papers on the very points he raises regarding differing galaxy types and MOND.

[@PhilHalper1]

Why do you say that?

[@deathwarmedover]

@@PhilHalper1 Many if not all of his opening statements regarding MOND have been addressed in the last 6 years.

[@bretdaley6869]

Gravity is something that is not effected by dimensional barriers. There is one gravity as there is one light throughout all dimensions and universes

[@PhilHalper1]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

[@pinball1970]

​@@PhilHalper1Enjoyed the discussion. Spelling mistake on last clip for your time stamp.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@pinball1970 thanks

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

How do you know? Are you God?

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Bret thinks he's God. 😂

[@franks.6547]

Dear Phil, maybe you could find out if someone has thought of a solution for a spacetime metric with two big bang like singularities, but with spacelike separation inbetween - so unlike Penroses cyclic model with timelike succession, or the Janus model that forks at our own big bang. And no quantum multiverse with different physical constants - just plain General Relativity. Actually, they don't need to be singularities, just two regions that locally do isotropic expansion but then, rather than ending in heat death just merge somehow, maybe even via a contracting region. It would be fun to ponder the entropic arrow of time, and also the role of Λ in that scenario. I wonder if such "big bang" expansion regions could actually be in the order of 10^23 or so, making our observable universe a microscopic part (of maybe some mundane household item on a larger scale :-)

[@joe-9256]

The final nail in the coffin for the Dark Matter Hoax is that the James Webb Telescope has not observed any shredded spiral galaxies. If the dark matter was not perfectly distributed homogenously throughout the entire universe, then the beautiful spirals of the galaxies would be subjected to uneven force distributions as they flew through the bumpy terrain of dark matter. Why wasn't the updated gravity equation presented in this podcast? For example if all we need to do is change the so called gravitation constant to a second order polynomial, I can live with that. Anyone with basic scientific literacy can easily see that this Dark Matter Hoax has been contrived by greedy physicists. They are all clamoring for the big grant money with this overdramatic hunt for the holy grail. In reality, they are either too lazy, too stupid or too criminal to correct their broken equation for the force of gravity.

[@PhilHalper1]

People I know who work in these fields seem very genuine to me. There are difficult questions

[@magister.mortran]

Who was responsible that science has been on the wrong track for so many years?

[@PhilHalper1]

in what way wrong?

[@constablebrew]

Is there ever one person responsible for all of a scientific field of research?

[@redshiftdrift]

"Let's look for it [dark matter particles] because we might be lucky" [1:35:03] is not the way to do science.

[@PhilHalper1]

why not?