Did Astronomers Just Prove Dark Energy is an Illusion?

[@RyanRidden]

Fantastic video and thanks for the shout out! Cosmology is going to be an exciting field over the next few years with all the new data that is coming.

[@AndrewBlucher]

Exciting work Ryan!

[@dmsoundcollective6746]

I totally love this. I can't wait to check out the full explanation of this theory

[@TheArtofFugue]

@@dmsoundcollective6746read the papers, what you seek is there for consumption.

[@Juttutin]

In the last week, I've learnt that we Kiwis have not only the long standing *final boss* global champion of Scrabble, and have built our own Fusion generator with a freaking giant toroidal *levitating* magnet, but also a dude who's apparently got the receipts that could redefine *how the universe works* Hmm, it's gone midday. Maybe I should get out of bed...

[@v2ike6udik]

you live in made up reality. JWT is an illusion. try processs that idea. you know im not lying because you are sad,

[@dominictarrsailing]

instead of calling it "dark energy" prehaps they should have called it "goblins" or "dragons" to give a better impression that it was just a made up thing to fill in a gap

[@ArcaneAvian19]

The fabled Goblin Energy

[@sicarius100]

that's what the word "dark" implies, that it's an unknown force

[@truefact844]

Dark matter sounds perfect, now dark energy. You know the what they have in common? They still don’t have a clue. All I can say is I am grateful to Einstein, I didn’t know he stopped the universe exploding. That is RAD😂

[@Kriegter]

Energy X

[@brothermine2292]

>truefact844 : Einstein stopped the (steady state) universe from _imploding_ (due to gravity). Not exploding. You misheard what was said in the video.

[@fgvcosmic6752]

I mean in a sense, we already knew this. It was kinda moreso "68% unaccounted for", dark energy was just a fancy word for saying "a thing we dont understand"

[@jonkayl9416]

Agreed but the Dark Energy is in the maths. So the sacedemics lack an answer, probably because they are better than maths than science.

[@xecyc7951]

That's a nice excuse for bozo clown science, this thing that we don't understand has been defended for decades and we act like it actually exists, that's why the standard model is called the standard lol, without dark matter or dark energy there is no standard model. Also, you're confusing dark matter with dark energy...

[@MrMelonMonkey]

well we knew that dark matter probably wasnt A thing/force but we assumed the effects of "it" to be real i.e. accelerating expansion. as i understand it acoording to the paper in discussion, "we" happen to be in a place in the universe where, by the sheer amount of mass surrounding us, time rolls faster than where we look into space because in any direction you look eventually the light travelling your way will pass through a void where due to the lack of mass space is less curved and time runs slower making the light shift its wavelengths making it appear to us that the stuff behind the void is accelerating away from us. and somehow the light falling into our gravity well after passing the void increasing its energy does play into that as well. but im not sure exactly how much.

[@alexanderknips4690]

​@@xecyc7951I don't know what you are referring to. Standard model is usually not a common term in physics and astronomy but a specific term for the particle standard model that surely does not include any references to dark energy

[@ivoryas1696]

​@@xecyc7951 What part is he confusing? The common figure for dark energy is that it makes up 68% of the universe and that's what he gave. 🤷🏾‍♂️ If it's the fact that it was used as an """excuse""" for holes in theories, then that doesn't work either, as both were pretty clearly formulated to explain phenomena hitherto unexplained. That's why they're both called "dark"...

[@HM-rz8nv]

"Dark Energy" has always been a stand in concept, a label for an observed phenomena that scientist lacked a good explanation for. It's like knowing about plant and animal evolution without knowing about genes and epigenetics.

[@Automatons.]

Okay, that's a good way to put it. Helps me understand it a bit more. Thanks dude

[@reshpeck]

Exactly, that is an excellent analogy. The more we learn about cosmology and physics, the more "dark energy" as an explanatory concept fades away into a relic of science history.

[@hindugoat2302]

there is plenty of legit science where the concept is vague and uncertain and hard to find proof

[@elram2649]

So, presupositions based on theories, etc, etc.

[@jackesioto]

The seemingly infinite singularities of black holes also serve as a stand-in concept.

[@killgazmotron]

What im supremely shocked by, especially if it comes to be true, is how simple it is. This is not really that difficult to understand at all and this whole time i had thought if anything was going to disprove dark energy it was, intuitively going to include some sort of hyper math concerning dimensions and all sorts of wackiness. but this answer is much more "it was under your nose the whole time". Very neat.

[@GiuseppeSan]

Agree - although to be fair, the math is still pretty insane. Differential geometry, tensor calculus, etc. At least for me, it's daunting.

[@blacklistnr1]

Sincerely the suprising part of coming up with models is that relatively simple models can predict stuff in our universe. There's absolutely nothing stopping the universe from being driven by some rules which would take up more paper to write than we have on earth. So I think it's really important to appreciate that we are even having the current conversation

[@FinLogan]

A nod to "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural science"

[@chrisme843]

Somewhat I hope that these findings will turn out to be correct. The whole idea of dark energy has always seemed very unsatisfying to me. Looking forward to seeing what astronomers can find out.

[@np6697]

Cool World's is coping hard with this esoteric timescapes gobly gook

[@ascaniosobrero]

For that, dark matter is even worse. It reminds me of the "ether" made up to explain light transmission: something no one could detect but was useful to provide an explanation to a detectable phenomenon

[@FCKSHT813]

@@ascaniosobrero Its all BS EU theory is the true way. hahahha

[@infinidominion]

Seems like they didn't want to accept how much is within the major black holes

[@vaibhavsingh8122]

@@infinidominion They came up with a theory very recently regarding that as well involving the tiny primordial blackholes with the mass of a mountain but size of an atom. They are also testing this theory by studying the slight wobbles of tiny planets and their satellites

[@shawnparadise6504]

Merry Christmas Cool Worlds!

[@CoolWorldsLab]

Back at ya!

[@donotoliver]

Mr. Worlds

[@BobBigWheels]

Timescapes makes more sense to me. Which is not good for the theory as I'm usually wrong.

[@daarom3472]

better than "not even wrong"!😂

[@phoenixbyrd79]

time doesn't exist.

[@alanhonlunli]

Doesn't necessarily mean vacuum energy doesn't exist. It's probably a little of both, as all things are in life.

[@fluffysheap]

Don't worry, scientists are usually wrong too 😅

[@88balloonsonthewall70]

@@phoenixbyrd79 What do you mean by this exactly?

[@GodWorksOut]

I’ve been saying for a long time. We’ll probably find that there is no dark matter or energy, we just don’t understand the universe like we think we do. Humanity will look back on it the way we look back on the four elements of matter.

[@lanta-darren]

Copernicus thought he figured it out in the 1500s and look how far we've come since then. Imagine where we might be in another 500 years.

[@davidconlee2196]

I'm rooting against dark energy and dark matter like a sports fan. Dark matter especially felt like bad science to me. That said, I have no idea what the truth is.

[@lundin_lindsey]

I’m personally hoping it’s just a whole mess of teeny tiny black holes.

[@Dylan-zm3ht]

another video so soon? Merry Christmas David and Cool Worlds team.

[@CoolWorldsLab]

Little present for you all

[@Kaboom-0623]

@@CoolWorldsLab if they would apply scientific method correctly they wouldnt need to make crap up that doesnt exist .... Nature ALWAYS uses the simple to make the complex ... man uses the complex to explain the simple ... exactly as wrong as one can be wrong

[@--Nabe-rius--]

So to recap, Timescapes is saying that due to absence of gravitational bias through voids it's causing a red shift that we mistook for an accelerating Universe? I mean... I really hope this is true for the future civilizations after us.

[@tatsuya2112]

This doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't expanding, but it does mean that the known models would be completely wrong about the rate of expansion if it is actually expanding, in theory though this does open up the possibility of a renewal of other universal ends like the big crunch because we wouldn't be capable of measuring alot of things properly at that point, even the age of the universe would be questionable if this is proven true.

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

It's almost right too, but it's not. I went through all the calculations a few days ago and the answer is simpler and much more intuitive and elegant then even that. Because it doesn't explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. It only assumes the cause of red shifting, because we haven't been able to prove why light red shifts at all. Only that it does and more so in objects further away. But the accelerating universal expansion thing requires space to be expanding, we can't observe that locally in any way at all. It's not the universe that's expanding but light is accelerating. It does so more absent the interference of gravity. So once the light makes it into intergalactic space it will continue to accelerate forever as the wavelength lengthens. The photon has no mass, it's simply a transfer of energy from one form to another, wavelength to velocity. But at that speed the light doesn't experience time itself. It is the distances that cause the wavelength to stretch out and increase the speed like a spring uncoiling. That is the only thing that explains why the universe looks like the acceleration of the expansion is real. It's the light accelerating, not the universe. It solves every mystery, eliminates the need for dark matter and dark energy entirely and makes all our observations make total intuitive sense. It even explains why galaxies rotations seem too fast to hold themselves together. I spent hours doing the math with an Ai double checking everything. It couldn't find any problems with it either. I had to train the model on the concept first, I wanted to know if I was missing anything. So we plugged the math into everything it might break and it all worked better. It only breaks the need for dark matter and dark energy. Which obviously don't exist and never did. Or we'd have seen them. It even won't affect our technology in any way. Light accelerating at that right wouldn't even be measurable with our current instruments on scales millions of times larger than the Earth, or solar system. But the distance between galaxies, in the voids, that light starts to pick up some speed. But give it what we used to think of a 7 or 8 billion light years of distance, which might just be 2 or 3 light years in reality. It gets going really fast near the end. It'll cover what we think of as a billion light years in more like a couple seconds. Because the speed increase is exponential, just like the assumed universal expansion rate is. This is also why James Webb keeps seeing things so far away they would have existed before the big bang. They are far away, they are just sooner but still far away.

[@adearthical]

So. Turtles all the way down, then? ​@@MikeJones-wp2mw

[@AxionXIII]

True. Imagine this voids all travel at their own unique speeds… calculating the age of the universe would be impossible it would seem.

[@kazedcat]

​@@MikeJones-wp2mwHow can light accelerate it already travels at the speed limit?

[@zeldaandTwink]

i remeber as a kid i was so interested in space and physics and when I heard of dark energy I thought "well that seems like a convenient pile of horse shit right there" and never gave it much weight in my mind

[@AceSpadeThePikachu]

I've long thought that just assuming the universe is completely homogeneous is a bit flimsy. Often times when the debate comes up over the geometry of the universe (round, flat or hyperbolic), I like to add "Okay but what if we live in a lumpy universe? What of the fabric of space-time is stretching a lot faster in some areas than others? What if our observable portion of the universe just happens to be in a rather large lope jutting out of a party balloon animal or popcorn kernel-shaped cosmos?"

[@theslay66]

Sure, but what would this bring to the table, compared to assuming it's homogenous ?

[@ObjectsInMotion]

The reason we dont is that all those assumptions are unfalsifiable, all we know is that as far as our observations show, there is no global deviation in density. If the data says homogenous, you have to follow that until proven otherwise.

[@TheRABIDdude]

I love this comment thread 😊

[@mjm3091]

In most cases it's irrelevant, as we are not concerned with universe beyond our observable bubble. Because unless the laws of physics change significantly in that bubble (or our understanding of them gets better) or we find a way to travel faster than light - we very much won't be seeing or reaching beyond cosmological horizon, neither we really gonna get affected by it. Universe is flat, because that's how we observe it right now.

[@jeffbenton6183]

I'm embarrassed to say, I've never thought of this

[@pythonxz]

This illustrates that you should never be afraid of anything challenging your assumptions. Better yet, you should be glad.

[@Ana-bw7gm]

But even if you ask something they are all up in arms against you, calling us stupid, unable to understand etc., etc. When in fact they are the ones who don't know despite spending so much time working on the same thing.

[@ThePopeOfAllDope]

Very true. Luckily, I haven’t met any physicists that are bad at taking scepticism.

[@bryguy306]

Hey, that’d be great if it was actually practiced. Let’s put this to the test: a $100 billion dollar global study to determine all possible sources of climate change, extraneous of human involvement. How far you think that will go? It won’t. Because nobody is interested in aggravating peer-review anymore.

[@leomajor88]

@@bryguy306Inconvenient truths about human’s impact on the world sucks. So do inflammatory comments that attempt to dismantle entire fields of science to further stoke mistrust in the public.

[@leomajor88]

@@bryguy306 Scientists are trained to investigate all plausible factors affecting the climate. If there were valid alternative explanations, they would be rigorously studied and debated within the scientific community. Additionally, The impact of solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and other natural factors has been extensively researched. These factors are accounted for in climate models, and they can’t explain the rapid warming we’re observing today.

[@Sajuuk]

I love how science and the scientific method is self correcting. Also, I never liked the idea of dark matter and energy. It felt like a cop-out.

[@RorikH]

Yeah it feels like people forget that being wrong is an important step of the scientific process. We start out by being very wrong (Plato's Epicycles) , and then we prove that we're wrong about something and come up with a better explanation (Newtonian Physics), and then we prove that that explanation was wrong as well and keep working on the next one (General Relativity, etc...). Hell, the current accelerating-expansion-via-dark-energy model only dates back to the late 1990's, and people have been hard at work trying to prove it wrong since then.

[@ImVeryOriginal]

This has nothing to do with dark matter though. And how is dark matter a cop out, if it's just the observation that regions of the Universe behave *as if* there was invisible matter in them? An exotic new type of matter is a possible, and currently favored *preliminary* hypothesis, not dogma or even a theory. Alternative models based on adjusting gravity simply can't explain all the observations, but we also can't detect the hypothetical new type of matter. Saying "we don't know exactly what's going on, but it might be X, we have to investigate further" isn't a cop-out, itr's the heart of how science works.

[@solarydays]

@@ImVeryOriginal they also pushed the big bang theory as accepted science for a long time and you still can't talk about how recent findings contradict it. the average person takes these as facts so to them this is now " correction " , not discovery

[@davidtatro7457]

I'm so glad that you were the first among my favorite science channels to comment on this. I look forward to the general shakedown of this new hypothesis.

[@UhLittleLessDum]

After deciding against a PhD, I wound up working in software instead of physics. 3 years ago I left my career in software behind to work on a model that's loosely related to this. I was able to derive multiple directly observed quantities that are completely unaccounted for by either SR or GR, and this was achieved with only the slightest modification to Einstein's SR that then of course produces a modified GR. The difference is that SR and GR and much more formally unified in the model I've been working on, and this is all accomplished without the need for time dilation or even 4-vectors. To sum up the model: - All 4 vectors are collapsed to relativistic 3 vectors. - Gamma is applied to space, with time dilation occurring only as a secondary effect. - This space dilation is then bound with the equivalence principle. - By binding this proposed spatial dilation with gravitational acceleration, it's straight forward to find a velocity required to produce our local gravitational acceleration. - Cosmic inflation becomes just a sum of all gravitational accelerations in the Universe, multiplied by some proportionality scalar. - After modifying that formula to accommodate the use of relativistic 3 vectors instead of 4 vectors, as time itself is now described by the principle of gravitational acceleration/ cosmic inflation, we find a value that fits well within 1% of direct observation through SNe and CMB data. Where it's going: - The proposed model describes our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension as a 3 dimensional, expanding geometry. - Because of this, there exists new opportunities to unify electromagnetism with gravity through some modifications to Maxwell's equations. This is what I'm currently working on now, or at least when I have time to work on it. I gave up _everything_ for this model, and became homeless in the process. Over the course of this fiasco, I created my own academic/STEM focused note taking app/framework that I'm now hoping to release to the public for free in the next month in an attempt to draw attention to this model. Alongside the documentation for that framework, I've published some of my notes on the matter as a sort of demo. If you're curious, you can find my notes if you look up my username and look for the demo.

[@JamesSouthernCross]

Fascinating. I will not pretend to completely understand your theory but last month I was thinking about how the equivalence principle could be applied to travel through the timescape which could possibly partially explain the rate of travel through the timescape. When I separate time from the space/time field I feel that may be incorrect or naive on my part, especially if the 'spin vector' is different between space and time. Essentially I want to discover what time-based inertia is, and how it would manifest itself in SR and GR. Also I worry that you have created another version of MOND which cannot effectively account for the localized deviation from the general field effect that observational data confirms [ i.e. dark matter free galaxies, offset dark matter (implied dark matter effect offset) . On a side note I can respect your dedication to working on this aspect of physics. We all greatly admire Einstein, and yet those engaged in physics must exceed, re-interpret and even correct what he built in order to fully understand this universe even if we gain a full understanding of particle physics and perhaps even the standard model and a unified theory or field-linkage protocol. Good luck with your theory.

[@raycar1165]

Wallace Thornhill proposed E-MOND to include electricity. Not that anyone would hear about it on a mainstream channel. They created the Thunderbolts Project as a place for people who were pushed to the fringe for telling the emperor he has no clothes. All (critical thinkers) are welcome in the natural philosophy of the Electric Universe. Much ❤ Love 🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️ Terra 🌞 Pax

[@_loss_]

First off, you're very inspirational. Secondly, I'm having issues finding your notes.

[@UhLittleLessDum]

@@_loss_ Look up my username. It should lead you somewhere with a demo. My notes are the demo.

[@UhLittleLessDum]

I of course would prefer to just send you the Url... but youtube needs to keep that ad revenue up by making sure we stay on their app as long as possible.

[@simaddiction]

Ya know, at 57 years old, I don't understand much of what you talk about, but I love the videos and "learning" about it.

[@painovoimaton]

Curiosity is often more than enough!

[@GeneraluStelaru]

This development is extremely important to me. It significantly lowers my existential angst.

[@faketree]

I agree

[@tehphoebus]

Good to know there are others out there that understand what it is like. :)

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

Why? It existing or not doesn't change the core concept of reality or the size of the universe

[@rickyspanish4792]

I also wonder why! Were you scared of dark energy? Or that the universe might expand into nothingness?

[@mejuliie]

There is honestly nothing to fear. Given that current theories are just that, since we have a hard time factoring in dark matter due to us knowing incredibly little about it. Even an ever expanding universe will be exciting and dynamic.

[@LaurentCassaro]

It even has a Cool name... TIMESCAPES.

[@gabbleratchet1890]

It sounds a bit like a Rush album.

[@CoolWorldsLab]

I think there’s a TNG episode called that which was my immediate thought!

[@134StormShadow]

​@@CoolWorldsLab I think that may be the episode with Picard taking a lifetime to learn to play a Ressikin flute??

[@scottseibert7680]

@@gabbleratchet1890 Recently, I read about something called "time crystals" and how they're used in quantum computers and I thought it sounded like the plot device from a weird 1970s sci-fi movie like Logan's Run or Zardoz.

[@DiogoVincenzi]

@@134StormShadow That one is Inner Light. Timescape is about the Enterprise and a Romulan ship being frozen in time.

[@JKDVIPER]

7:15 I think, the thing for me, that I noticed personally, was the when you deal with GINORMOUS MASSES light speed becomes slow, seeing as though it travels on a reality (REAL MASS) grid, space can be CURVED FAST and the result is way too much stuff done for light to keep up with. ❤

[@ethanboyd7843]

Super happy to hear you say suggest and theory stead of proves or debunks just for clicks.

[@saraswati_6171]

I’ve been thinking this for years and can’t get over the surprise that others are looking in this direction. Rather than thinking I’m smart I think there is a consensus of thinking that takes time to get repeated back to us.

[@The_Tauri]

3:22 - "Beauty often seduces us on the road to truth" - James Wilson. A good quote to remember, especially for scientists.

[@brothermine2292]

Common sense & intuition often divert us from the road to truth too.

[@RevusX]

Merry Christmas, Dr. David Kipping and all of the Cool Worlds Lab and affiliates! 🎄

[@Nautilus1972]

That's a narrow list for Christmas wishes, I'm just sayin'.

[@CartoonrBOY]

I see we're bored already!😅I really hope this turns out to be the case - it seems far more elegant than a fudged theory. Merry Christmas!!!

[@CoolWorldsLab]

Science never waits!

[@I_am_who_I_am_who_I_am]

During college, before the discovery of the accelerated expansion, I asked the professor what's the progress of acceleration and his answer shocked me because I wasn't even studying cosmology, but rather we had a visiting professor for the course of self-referencing systems, and hence cosmology and the universe as an example of an emerging system. So, his answer to my question: young man, you have asked probably the most important question in cosmology. Thus, he asked me to say what I think, and this was my answer (remember I'm not a physicist): since it can't be constant because it wouldn't make sense, it's either decreasing or increasing. For it to decrease, it should have already had a maximum before it was increasing, and the big bang is certainly not a local maximum but the beginning t0. Hence it must be increasing towards a local maximum tmax, at which point it will proceed decreasingly towards tmin which will most likely be equal in energy to t0 over the lagrangian. Every parsimonious system in physics behaves like this. There is no reason why the universe shouldn't.

[@RossWalkersVideos]

I think even to someone with the total knowledge of 'I watched Interstellar', it's perfectly obvious that there are huge differences in space/time throughout the cosmos depending on what mass is around you - and there is a lot of empty space between galaxies. So dark matter it appears, doesn't exist (oxymoron?). It's simply a math problem, based on fundamental physics that's been around for decades. Worse - it's a fundamental, relatively simple math equation, that's been around for decades. It just meant someone sitting down and working out time dilation and mass. Worse, it's basic, fundamental physics, that's been around for decades. So why are all these geniuses designing tests to look for it with the LHC! Why do all our 'best minds' still act like it exists! I just find it absolutely staggering that this dark matter nonsense has been discussed, enforced and postulated by supposedly educated people for so long, when they're all talking about a dry popcorn fart!

[@jaredhouston4223]

People who say they hate dark energy, that's pretty much everyone because we don't fully understand it. If anything this new paper will give us a more exact way of measuring the universe's expansion.

[@jonkayl9416]

Dark Energy is simpley positive space manifesting into the field we know as "Space Time". End of. Allot of the Maths around gravity doesnt take account of the positive push of new space filed entering into what we see as space. This is where current science fails. Its one sided. Current science just doesnt get it. + and - think about it ;)

[@tetsuoakira8294]

Disagree. I think we live in a concentric cyclical universe. And this would further that even more. Everything eventually coming back to that "singularity" to start again.

[@wudimusic]

How can something so obvious, as relativity of time relative to mass, is not taken into account when looking at the Standard Model looking at Dark Energy?

[@iAnasazi]

Math too hard 🤷‍♂️

[@JamaicaWhiteMan]

Publish or perish with a dollop of click-bait.

[@kevoreilly6557]

@@iAnasaziphysicist increasingly can’t do the math .. so, yeah

[@kazedcat]

Because a scalar field is more likely than a tensor field. Timescapes is just replacing a scalar field with a tensor field. Now you have to assume a tensor map in your equation that is not needed with a scalar field. Mathematically you are introducing more assumptions with a tensor field than a scalar field.

[@georgelionon9050]

@@kazedcat Yeah, but I okhams razor is good and all that, I never understood, why physics used to dismiss something as untrue just because its mathematically less convenient. Same applies to ECT.. sure you use the simpler math if it doesnt matter, but ECT has very different explanations going on when it goes do black holes and big bang... so why is it generally ignored as possiblity, just because the math is hard? (ECT also introduces a tensor field for the "torsion" of space time)

[@jockeb2651]

Woho Merry Christmas!

[@nastytechniquez9685]

Your passion and excitement for this field is contagious. I love your videos and the work you do

[@douglasstrother6584]

In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, *macroscopic* experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology. It makes sense to use *all* of the tools in the toolbox. "Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories.

[@snarflcat6187]

And I REALLY wanted The Electric/Plasma Universe theory to work. Unfortunately, it doesn't and MUCH dishonesty and falsehood has gone into desperate writers publishing in that realm. Largely from Christian 'scientists' desperate to validate a 6000-year-old universe. ON THE OTHER HAND and COMPLETELY separate, Electromagnetism CAN account for virtually all inconsistent universal physics and maths (YES, MATHS is a real British word for any equation containing more than one calculation, and that's the origin culture of our language). Magnetic fields are created when a planetary body containing iron spins. Imagine how much magnetism is generated, then, when an entire solar system of iron planets and iron-laden asteroids spins around a star? Now imagine how much magnetism is generated by an entire GALAXY of iron objects spinning around a central massive singularity at 150,000 mph? AND what do giant-ass magnetic fields do when they encounter each other? PUSH AWAY FROM EACH OTHER...hence the OBSERVATIONS that led to fictions such as Dark Energy. NOW CONSIDER Dark Matter. What OBSERVATION concluded that DM MUST exist? WHY, it was the fact that galaxies were spinning TOO FAST considering their estimates of MASS. WELL, they FAILED to consider that same magnetic effect, didn't they? Magnetic fields attracting and repelling each other can account for that EFFECT, rather than mass. No Need For A Magic Invisible Particle. THEY FAILED TO CONSIDER INVISIBLE FIELDS !!!

[@donaldcarpenter5328]

YES!!!

[@Faustobellissimo]

I find it baffling that a dogmatic philosophical assumption (the homogeneity of the universe) has become the foundational basis of the standard cosmological model despite being experimentally unproven and unprovable. And the simplification of math is just an axcuse... I'm afraid the real reason is that an inhomogeneous (but still isotropic) universe would invalidate the copernican/mediocrity principle and reintroduce anthropocentrism back into science.

[@nice.2653]

Merry Christmas! 🎁🎄

[@prakharsingh4763]

Merry christmas guys

[@skybluskyblueify]

David and Sam O. right around Christmas?A gift-filled day. Thanks for trying to inform the public (that for now seems to distrust all sorts of experts out of hand).

[@NOLNV1]

What an intuitive explanation for this theory!! I hadn't heard of it and I am not in any way a physicist, but just getting me thinking of how variation in mass densities means different expansion rates and different spectral shifts gave me a good idea right away! Great video

[@modalmixture]

It’s interesting how the preference for elegance and simplicity over messiness and complexity has at times led us to hold onto theories for longer than we should have. But this is how paradigm shifts begin, according to Kuhn. An alternative theory arises that better explains a certain piece of data. Then it begins to explain other observations that don’t fit into the existing model. At a certain point, the existing theory gets so weighted down with messy complexity (epicycles) that the new theory begins to seem more elegant.

[@kill95]

The problem is that beauty won't go away, it just morphs into different parameters over time, it is too subjective and is preventing good theories to emerge because they don't meet the right beauty flavor of the time.

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

As a math nerd, I get the admiration for beauty, but real scientists should not let it ultimately determine their findings, lol.

[@raycar1165]

That’s sounds like what’s happened to the Electric Universe model. Except, it is older than the Big Bang… was and still is suppressed in favor of the current cosmological crisis. We can’t have a theory that includes electrogravitics when we’re also trying to keep the advanced technology to a minimum. 😉

[@carlosdgutierrez6570]

@@raycar1165 Two problems, the electric model doesn't expalin the abundance ratios of light elements nor the lack of many more highly energetic anihilation events in the double layers between matter and antimatter pockets. Oh, and accordingto the EU model, nuclear bombs and reactors shouldn't and couldn't work at all.

[@Commented_Commenter]

The scientific term is parsimony. Words like elegance and beauty are mostly used for science communication purposes as there is no objective measure for the beauty of a cosmological theory.

[@tenorenstrom]

Finally! I asked this very question back when I studied physics more than 20 years ago and none of my professors could give me a satisfying answer.

[@aspzx]

What question?

[@tenorenstrom]

@ How red shift from gravity wells would affect the perception of the speed of the expansion of the universe.

[@myth3516]

@@tenorenstromoh nice, imagine if you did the research back then!

[@hungrypanda4506]

@@tenorenstrom Very nice! What I like about this is that the logic behind this theory seems very simple and I always like when things have simple reasonings

[@OrpheusSonOfCalliope]

@@aspzx Exactly! I love all the non-experts that had the correct insight *after* it's published!

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I don't think it's an alternative... it should be the default. Right from the moment that some people claimed inflation was needed "because there wasn't enough time". That just implies very heavy time dilation. If matter tells space how to curve, then putting in much more emptiness means relatively less matter to curve space... and let's be honest, dark energy is called dark energy because people don't know what causes said effect, so it could be anything.

[@artistanthony1007]

Exotic Matter, it's some cosmic scale and kind of EM that is causing it, like we've seen bizarre things with that stuff like Superionic Ice.

[@CashedoutLookingup]

another awesome video show casing a new voice I haven't seen and glad to follow. Dr. Ryan's channel looks fun and I'm always looking for science communicators!

[@protox07]

Have a happy new year Cool Worlds

[@revmatchtv]

If this is true it’s huge! I’m not a scientist, but I’ve always thought there might be a different explanation. None of the explanations are very “satisfying”.

[@CAMSLAYER13]

They aren't meant to satisfy, they are theoretical concepts

[@jimmyr545]

Not to brag but I never bought into the idea of dark energy. How could the universe just get energy from nothing? It violates conversations laws that have held solid. It seems way more likely that there's a mistake in one of our assumptions or observations, especially given all that complexity.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

Conservation laws do not hold in an expanding universe anyway. We already know redshift is a net loss of energy, there is nothing wrong with a net gain of energy according to those laws. Energy is only conserved in static space, dynamic space has different conservation laws.

[@BasiliskX]

​@@ObjectsInMotionespecially when you consider how many tiny interactions in a universe sized system add up. Imagine how many different bodies have interacted with that light in some way before it reached Earth.

[@jimmyr545]

@@ObjectsInMotion that's the same idea that I'm skeptical of - that the universe could expand (or contract) in a way that violates conservation of matter-energy. Granted I'm way out of my expertise amd depth but I suspect it's more likely there's a mistake in the data or theory behind it somewhere.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@jimmyr545 no need to be skeptical, we've proved it here on earth. Just look up cosmological redshift, it's a very commonplace and easy to understand example of energy conservation violation.

[@Jaybearno]

Ive always wondered, and haven't received a great response (keep in mind im not a physicist)-- if we know Newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum scale, how are we so sure it operates the same on the super-macro?

[@SonoranSol]

It doesn't, that's why relativity and special relativity are used for macro physics and they stopped calling them Newton's Laws and changed to Newtonian physics. They work for our closer surroundings, though, where the effects of gravity from other celestial bodies than earth don't matter enough and light might as well be considered traveling instantaneously. As soon as the physics is far enough away or traveling fast enough for those things (and other things) to matter, Newtonian physics isn't enough to make accurate calculations.

[@Jaybearno]

@ so you're saying that the paradox (galaxy rotational speed, etc) leading to the dark matter/energy explanation isn't based on Newtonian physics? Never considered that. I just assumed that even though the distance is great, the relative speeds would be still be in the classical realm.

[@Someguyorgirlfulness]

Good, I'm happy there's progress on this. I've always hated dark energy and dark matter to a lesser degree

[@burningoceanfloor1560]

As those involved in operations beyond our world say, the universe has always been here and will always be here

[@bhuvaneshs.k638]

So Big crunch is real. We will go back to being part of singularity... There's no heat death. Gravitational force will eventually overcome the expansion of the universe

[@CoolWorldsLab]

Would be a paradigm shift

[@bhuvaneshs.k638]

@CoolWorldsLab 💯

[@aroemaliuged4776]

@@CoolWorldsLab Paradigm shifts will happen when their is a lull for fifty years

[@alwilsonwastheman]

​@@CoolWorldsLab the world could use a few paradigm shifts...

[@Chatsworth1979]

I'm looking forward to it.😊

[@KillianTwew]

4:26 Thats been my whole problem with redshifting and expansion. It never seemed to account for the blatant time dilation of gravity

[@MrTheclevercat]

It absolutely does. Calculate how much time dilation a particle will experience moving at near or at the speed of light in a galaxy compared to a void. Almost no difference at all. Believe it or not but astronomers account for gravity.

[@TheRABIDdude]

​@@MrTheclevercat If there's almost no difference, then how does this timescape theory stack up? Not being defensive or anything, I'm interested to hear if you know more about it. Is the timescape theory adsing something extra beyond this, or do you think it's a bad theory because it's overstating the effect of matter on redshift?

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@TheRABIDdude The timescape hypothesis doesn't make any sense to me. Their basic premise of time dilation on particles in a void vs not being in a void is essentially meaningless because fast moving particles are not meaningfully affected by time dilation outside of encounters with compact objects. A particle that moves from a star in a galaxy, across a void, and through another galaxy has almost no gravitational interaction at all. Entire galaxies could collide without causing a single collision between stars. A particles mean distance it travels before hitting an object in space is near infinite. They hardly interact with gravity at all. There is just almost no difference in the density of matter in intergalactic space vs a void. It's like comparing 1x10^-18 and1x10^-20 and time dilation is only significant at something like 1x10^100. The first two conditions are both so sparsely filled with matter that their gravitational interactions with passing particles is almost absolutely 0 so their red shifts are not going to be any different. That's why the CMB is isotropic - it all has almost the exact same redshift in every direction we look.

[@TheRABIDdude]

@MrTheclevercat Well explained, thanks. I presume then that the timescapes theory must be asserting a change to the way we calculate time dilation, claiming that dilation from travelling through thinly spread matter (i.e. galaxies) is actually much larger than the conventional equations predict.

[@w0mblemania]

This is amazing. It's incredible how much the right naming can affect perceptions. If they'd called it "flubbulon" or "pixie dust", we'd have a very different idea (and appreciation) for "dark energy".

[@fluffysheap]

I'd like it more if they called it flubbulon. I mean if they can name a particle that holds things together the gluon, why not

[@thehellyousay]

they can't see it so they call it it dark, and they call it energy because that's what would be required to accelerate the observed expansion of the universe. scientists tend to be very sparse and direct with language

[@thehellyousay]

@@fluffysheap what's flubbul?

[@w0mblemania]

@@thehellyousay Plural for flubbulon

[@Tom_Quixote]

How about... DARK FLUBBOLON?

[@dbznappa]

I'd only just read of this and thought "I can't wait for a youtube physicist to explain it to me". Great work and so fast! Thanks!

[@kingoffire9373]

This is what i've always thought has made the most sense to me, i'm just a layperson with no education in it, but I have kept up with it as much as I could over the years and thought about it a lot. It has always made more sense to me that time dilation is at play and is *looking* like 'dark energy' How all the math works out and the exact mechanisms, I have no idea, but just from a laypersons perspective of the way it has all been explained to me, that idea was the most natural, how voids form and those empty regions of space would have different passage of time, causing what would seem like the effect of dark energy Whether it's the correct theory or not I couldn't tell you, but I like it and I think it's worth exploring for sure

[@neillegault]

I love science of all kinds but I never really went to school for it. Over the years I managed to grasp many concepts which has always make me think, dream and feel that I'm part of this community. Thank you for making complex theories very understandable. I love your channel! Thanks!

[@elbentzo]

This is very interesting but also very limited to an astronomer's point of view. Dark energy has further justification beyond compliance to astronomical data (although these justifications are much more flexible when it comes to the amount of dark energy necessary in the universe). One such example would be the zero-point energy of quantum fields and the inescapable fact that all vacuum (in a quantum world) must have positive energy (assuming it's asymptotically flat) and negative pressure. And this is completely unrelated to type 1 supernovae.

[@RorikH]

Interesting. Perhaps if Dark Energy was called "Vacuum energy" or "Vacuum Pressure" people would be less likely to think of it as an awkward kludge to fix the numbers in astronomy. The idea that the universe is full of invisible matter and energy we can't detect still seems weird, but radio waves are invisible to the naked eye, Neutrinos interact with matter so rarely they can pass through miles of solid lead, and it took a century to measure gravitational waves after we theorized them, so detecting things that were previously undetectable isn't outside of the realm of possibility for science.

[@elbentzo]

@@RorikH There's a fantastic experiment that allows us to see at least one aspect of the quantum vacuum zero-point energy, which you should read about if you're interested. The Casimir effect is a formulation of the pressure created by quantum fluctuation of the vacuum on boundaries of such areas, and the experiment shows that two parallel conductive plates in a vacuum will attract (even though there's no electromagnetic force between them because they're not charged). It's been accurately measured on several occasions.

[@porridge4512]

Dark energy already breaks things in a quantum world as the scale factors are soooooo much different, to say exponentially is underselling it, that this would really be replacing one mystery with another for QFT

[@ambientspacem]

I knew it , next they will have to rethink the distance in space are all wrong

[@DJTechnosapien]

Watched Interstellar last night with my Dad! (again). It’s eye opening how focused the public media can seem on a certain topic like dark matter, and it’s brilliant how countless people dig against that supposed grain. Would love to hear more about blue shifting and gravity’s effects!

[@roykomprath4140]

Would this affect the age of the galaxies we are observing using JWST and Hubble? Could the age of these ancient (and long dead) galaxies be misinterpreted/wrong altogether? How would this affect deep-field astronomy and galaxy aging? Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm able to ask my question clearly but I hope it makes enough sense.

[@porridge4512]

Yes. The age of the Universe is approximately 17 billion years old standardised to a scale known as "finite infinity" in timescape. We see it locally at 14 billion, but in a void you would calculate it to be 17 billion years old

[@mcbizzle1906]

I've always thought we've got it completely wrong about dark energy and dark matter.

[@rancidblock5615]

Holy shit man you must be the next Einstein

[@jonkayl9416]

Agreed. Wise

[@araptuga]

What is the significance of that skepticism? What precisely did you notice that was completely wrong about dark matter or dark energy? Did you question the conclusion that stars in the outer galactic zones are orbiting too fast? Or that distant galaxies seemed to be separating from us too fast? Or did you instead agree those were happening, but have an alternative explanation for what was responsible for them? Or if neither of those, did you just feel that despite the evidence, it simply wasn't possible that, for example, the universe was suffused with huge amounts of invisible matter, unlike that which makes up everything we can see?

[@Ashdad99]

The last part. Yeah thats it

[@GolldLining]

Amazing, can you share your work on this ?

[@DJBillionator]

Before we knew about gases. The air around us was a "void" or treated like "nothing". We took breaths without knowing what it was. Regardless what we call the voids of space. Like the air around us, space is something. We just don't know. Like Tesla said, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”

[@Chris-ut8we]

I mean it’s really simple- dark energy is a dumb assumption. It’s easier to me to assume we’re operating form A incomplete local picture. Those ‘voids’ are just mass intersections of all celestial bodies in the universe. - if you realize all matter wants to come together / all ‘space’ pushes matter away… it’s a bit easier to picture. Especially if you operate on the idea that it was 2 infinite dimensions that collided. I think the forth dimension in a sense will be layers of our third dimensions creating infinite realities via ‘black holes’ But either way we’ll see!

[@Chris-ut8we]

Note: intersection of gravity wells (if you drew a line from all atoms to other atoms where would the largest intersections be based on gravity/size etc.

[@charlespancamo9771]

@@Chris-ut8we I do operate on that idea. I think it was m-theory or something akin to that. Two membranes/dimesions colliding. Almost like sex in a way where one ejaculated matter/energy into the other. Am I just a loon for thinking this?

[@SioxerNikita]

​@@Chris-ut8weDark Energy is dumb? You obviously don't understand the video, and don't even understand thst we have a 4th dimension. It is called time... and thinking there is infijite realities via black holes, is ... just as "dumb" as dar, enrrgy. A completely and utterly unproven phenomena. Sorry, dumber, as dark energy is at least something added mathematically to metch observations. Your multiverse doesn't even have observations

[@Juttutin]

06:24 "stay sober" he tells us, while doing his utmost not to show that he's giddy with excitement himself? 😁

[@Makabert.Abylon]

Showed no more emotion while saying that, Pareidolia.

[@johnathondavis5208]

Good thing so many have claimed it as FACT for years now. Always shoveling items down your throat (as fact) while they are stuck trying to prove a theory.

[@jb3995]

Your passion is awesome ty

[@ColeDedhand]

This shows exactly why "settled science" is the opposite of actual science. Science is the unending process of questioning everything.

[@dude2884]

a d flip-floping on everything every day. They know nothing for sure

[@Supermrloo]

Tell that to the pro lockdown crowd during covid

[@gdizzzl]

Cope

[@newdefsys]

"Settled" is a term used by the press and politicians to silence dissenting voices. Its not a term used in actual scientific circles.

[@KonsoleFaust]

@@dude2884 its almost like you still dont get it the point they are making. god I fucking hate stupid people.

[@javastream5015]

A historic comparison: When Milanković calculated precisely with just Newtonian mechanics he could explain the ice ages! Maybe a better calculation with GRT, like the time scapes theory, could explain some open problems?

[@somedudeok1451]

Nice clickbait to draw in the science deniers. Nice level-headed explanation that doesn't fuel the orrational distrust in science. A+

[@Luixxxd1]

What would be "rational distrust of science" how would that look like? (rational, not irrational, i didn't make a typo)

[@alexkiaii6548]

​@@Luixxxd1irrational* you made a typo*

[@alexkiaii6548]

​@@Luixxxd1rational distrust in current science is debunking science within its own paradeems and steps. Just like why debunking theisms is so fundementally easy for an atheist. You just need to debunk religion from inside its own paradeems and logics. People like = God logic,sam shamoun,mohahmed hijab,David Woods,ali dawah,dawah over dunya,john lennox, William laine craige. All are to this date fuming and raging over how atheists are so easily debunking and steelmaning all arguments for god, and even worse. They use a word, that is the bane of existence for religieous cultists.... "evidence and proof"

[@stooge_mobile]

​@@Luixxxd1It would look like: The evaluation of the current funding models of social science, and the refusal to fund controversial research. As for the physical sciences, no idea! Maybe dodgy journals putting out dodgy research? No one can rationally doubt the scientific method in the physical sciences.

[@mattBLACKpunk]

​@@Luixxxd1Not instantly​ taking any new paper you read as gospel, especially in very ideologically charged fields with lots of retracted studies like gmo foods etc would seem like some decently rational distrust of science

[@kaystephan2610]

I'm not an astronomer, only someone who has been interested in astronomy and astrophysics since I was a kid (well the astrophysics came later) and since I was a teenager i have kinda just thought of "dark energy" and "dark matter" as SOME lack of knowledge/understanding that we currently have. Cause let's be real. Mass that is allegedly out there and that allegedly makes up like what? 80% of all mass in the universe? Yet you cannot interact with it AT ALL? You can't see it, nothing but 80% of all mass is allegedly dark matter or energy? Yea...no.

[@NeilRichins]

Thanks for bringing this alternative theory and balancing it with an alternative viewpoint. Very fascinating new viewpoint. It's so easy to forget that science is the pursuit of knowledge, and not the pretence of absolute knowledge itself. Kudos and thanks!

[@CitiesTurnedToDust]

I've yet to see a video with the title phrased as a question that didn't turn out to have no answers whatsoever.

[@manguy01]

Dude. Timescapes make SO much sense to me. I've always thought that there were more impactful changes in time throughout outer space than everyone has assumed.

[@jonkayl9416]

Dude? Really? Dude! LOL

[@LarsCourville]

There's something further out that we can't see, a super duper black hole that's tugging the known universe in a curve around it.

[@Lexandreos]

Can't wait to read your paper on that, leave none of your calculations and observations out so we can test for ourselves.

[@--Nabe-rius--]

Knowing scientist, they would call it a super duper black hole.

[@LuDux]

@@Lexandreos Pfft, you can disprove anything by demanding proof of it

[@hawaiidispenser]

Never heard that idea before... very interesting.

[@davebohm464]

​@@Lexandreosdont disregard ideas just because they sound unrealistic. Be openminded

[@ArkenGAMES]

So did I get it right: what we see as dark energy / expansion is instead just because we are all moving towards or neighbors and there is some weird stuff going on in the gaps / empty space thats left?

[@DJCornelis]

I'm sure many of us have thought of before... "accelerated expansion must be a trick of the light" Happy to hear this intuition put into better words.

[@paularized1]

As a non physicist, I can confirm that the only thing rapidly expanding was my lack of comprehension while watching this video.

[@MyNameIsSalo]

basically the tl:dr is that scientists always have assumed that the universe is an even blur when you zoom far out. All parts of it appear to be the exact same. We know this isn't true but making this prediction has allowed us to calculate things with fairly high accuracy. This is like when you're in grade 8 science and you're given a question like "ignoring air resistance, if you drop a ball from this height, how long does it take to hit the ground?" If you ignore air resistance your answer will always be inaccurate by some amount, but it still gives a good estimation for most balls. This new theory comes along and says "hang on lets include air resistance and see what happens", and turns out in some cases it is more accurate

[@MS-vn2pb]

Wait until they figure out why fully developed galaxies and massive black holes exist so early on...

[@junkequation]

The black holes were leftover from the previous universe. They are much much older than the universe

[@Drawing4Justice]

Why? Genuinely curious

[@SalemShanouha]

So the universe going back to the way it started. The Big Crunch. Finally Alpha Centauri will be close enough to jump there in few billion years or so

[@sharpness7239]

That soon? Damn

[@benyomovod6904]

Too sad that mankind will be gone in 200years

[@dalaisdramalama4470]

what big crunch? and if start means big bang, what big bang?

[@mejuliie]

@@sharpness7239 No. Even if a Big Crunch were to happen, it would be more on the timescale of trillions of trillions of trillions.. of years.

[@jetboy33]

I'll have to add Dr. Ridden's channel to my subscribed. I love how Dr. Kipping explains all this stuff in detail in a way most of us can understand. John Michael Godier's channel does this well also. I'll always be thoughtful and curious about our universe, and Cool Worlds keeps me hooked on it. Merry Christmas!

[@Hackreacti]

I saw a relatively new study that says that the expansion of the universe is slowing down and that perhaps dark energy is a field that weakens over time and when it weakens enough, it condenses into new elementary particles, thus it would be practically a new big bang.

[@chefsanders9151]

Both dark energy and matter smacks of The Eather, miasma and The Humors or even the crystal spheres holding up the heavens... total bulls$it and was created to explain something we still dont understand.

[@alanjackson1015]

Disagree.The Aether was a compete fabrication based on no observational data whatsoever. DE and DM are "made up', but seem to be based on actual observational data. Very different in my mind.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

But how do you know it's BS if you don't understand it:?

[@bisque6448]

Exactly

[@CAMSLAYER13]

You gotta start somewhere

[@Eric-gq6ip]

​@@alanjackson1015Not true, the concept of the aether was developed in response to identifying the wave-like behavior of light and the scientific understanding at the time required a wave to have a medium to travel in which was the aether. Dark energy/matter is exactly the same thing, scientists observed something and tried to fit it into the understanding of the time, that we need mass/energy to produce the effects were seeing but have no idea where or what it is.

[@vazap8662]

I am SO happy to see this hypothesis grow wings. First heard on Petrov's, it's now everywhere. For decades my thoughts have been going towards this sort of explanation, never been a fan of dark matter and always considered it could be the result of over simplification. I do hope this will prove the correct way forward.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

So 'Big Bang' and 'expansion' assume a beginning point and infinite end; but when you consider what the universe expands from, or into, why not postulate continuous instead of point/infinity? Or something even more ludicrous like multi-verse.

[@canbakr5602]

Wow, it's great to hear such an incredible idea!

[@cyzhouhk]

Love this Christmas present, Cool Worlds

[@xstaticelite1640]

For clarification, is the timescapes model saying that the net redshift between the voids caused us to think that the expansion of the universe was accelerating or is it saying that it caused us to mistake that the universe was expanding in the first place? In other words, according to the timescapes model, is the universe expanding or not?

[@Banannawontsplit]

I studied physics at the university of canterbury in New Zealand, where prof. Wiltshire lectures. Incredibly clever individual, glad to see his work on a large platform like this!

[@timjohnson3913]

@3:40 A)Why would voids expand more rapidly than more dense regions of space? (Is this just an axiom of the theory?). B) I don’t understand why clocks ticking differently in the voids has anything to do with any of this. Light travels at the speed of light relative to us when we observe it, so I don’t see why light would linger in the voids just because clocks tick at different rates there. C) How does this theory do away with Dark Energy observed in the CMB data?

[@Dragoniiia]

thats so cool! dark energy always sounded to me like an ether, so im happy might get some new explanations fot Things That We Dont Know

[@flexico64]

Being proven wrong is the most exciting part of science!

[@jasonkelley6185]

Wonderful explanation. Subscribed.

[@Kliickz]

Always awesome and very informative. Thanks!

[@tjmcbride88]

Third video ive watched on the subject and i actually get it now. Well explained!

[@hoptoads]

"DARK" is simply a cosmological placeholder meaning we "Don't Actually Really Know".

[@LiamsLyceum]

Very interesting, thanks for breaking it down!

[@RealJohnnyAngel]

Holy hell. I'm gonna have to keep on top of this. As a sci fi writer, I was thinking on this and had kernels of ideas that were leading to timescapes. Obviously without the actual math and work that went into it, but buddy might owe me 2 beers now.

[@williamwilson6499]

It’s comforting as a layman that, although I’m completely puzzled by the universe, the eggheads are essentially clueless also. Thanks for mentioning Ryan Ridden. Just subscribed to his channel.

[@Urufu-san]

„Dark Energy“ is a construct to explain what we can’t understand yet. In the 1800s there was the „Fluidum“, which explained phenomena according to contemporary knowledge. At some point we‘ll understand more, and „dark energy“ we be replaced with actual discovery.

[@premalgorroochurn6431]

This is so cool, I feel like we may be on the cusp of a revolution in cosmology

[@TheKevphil]

"Establishment Science" never resists change?! And I guess that explains the near-religious fanaticism behind String Theory for the last 40 years, which only now is being seriously doubted. Phooey.