Plot Twist! There's No Dark Matter. Our Theory of Gravity is Broken

Visit brilliant.org/... to try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Astronomers have found compelling evidence that challenges the very existence of dark matter, suggesting that our current understanding of the universe might need a major revision. By carefully analyzing the rotation curves of galaxies-how stars move at different distances from the galactic center-they found that the mysterious dark matter may not be necessary to explain these movements after all. This finding adds a new twist to the growing evidence against dark matter, which has long been believed to make up 27% of the observable universe.
RESEARCH PAPER:
Indefinitely Flat Circular Velocities and the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation from Weak Lensing - Mistele et al (The Astrophysical Journal) - sou42.co/47X68kb
🎼 MUSIC
Resonance - Luba Hilman
Particle Emission - Silver Maple
Bahamas - Brendon Moeller
Ayama - Van Sandano
Reflexion - DEX 1200
Moonlit Serenity - Martin Landh
🎥 FOOTAGE: Envato Elements, StoryBlocks, NASA, ESA, and Pond5
💻 Created and Produced by: Rishabh Nakra
✍🏻 Written and Researched by: Shreejaya Karanth
🎙️ Narrated by: Jeffrey Smith
🌌 Animated by: Orkun Zengin

[@douglasstrother6584]

Postulating the existence of Dark Matter & Dark Energy but ignoring Electromagnetism reminds me of the Sydney Harris "... then a miracle occurs." cartoon.

[@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.

[@nolongeramused8135]

Dark matter has always been an obvious stand-in for "we totally missed something, so here's a place marker for later."

[@deadiemeyers1661]

My great grandson in his first semester of college, Physics 101, chapter 1, “Dark Matter: What the heck were they thinking?!?!”

[@bruceolga3644]

Dark matter is antimatter...the black goo, which is outer space; ewe cliché clone huemans programmed backwards should be somewhat aware 👁️

[@Rufticus]

Astrophysicist here. MOND is a good mathematical fit for rotation curves but it doesn't explain the gravitational lensing we see, nor the interactions we see in gravitational clusters like the Bullet Cluster. Furthermore, the early massive galaxy issue raised in the video has already been explained in that the Initial Mass Function (a parameter used to calculate mass during galactic evolution) in the early universe being different to that we see in today's universe which makes perfect sense given how much more dense the early universe was. Dark matter is an ugly theory, but it's still the one that fits the mathematics, the physics, and the observations we see all around us.

[@shawns0762]

Dark matter is dilated mass. Dilation is the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This doesn't mean that mass increases, it means mass becomes spread throughout spacetime relative to an outside observer. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. The "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

[@Rufticus]

@@shawns0762 An interesting hypothesis and not one I've ever come across in a peer reviewed paper to date. However, "dilated mass" is a bit of a misnomer in this context as you've presented it. (As is the infinite mass at speed of light - don't know how that one has endured so long - nothing with mass can ever reach the speed of light). The word "mass" has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass (also called rest mass) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer (a very important distinction is that it's the velocity of the observer!). According to the concept of mass-energy equivalence, invariant mass is equivalent to rest energy, while relativistic mass is equivalent to relativistic energy (also referred to as the total energy). As such, the mass of objects as we know them (the rest mass) is unperturbed. Time dilation is a result of the warping of very fabric of spacetime in the immediate vicinity of mass (all mass). For instance, there is a very small but crucial time dilation effect between the surface of Earth and orbiting satellites. If we didn't correct for this time dilation, GPS systems would not work. As such, mass itself does not "dilate" nor can it ever be infinite (even in terms of relativistic mass, as opposed to rest mass). Nevertheless, the missing mass that gives rise to the theory of dark matter is a missing rest mass and as such, even the idea of relativistic mass doesn't explain away the observable behaviours we see that support the existence of dark matter. You may also be confusing the centre of high concentrations of mass (ie: a singularity at the heart of a black hole) as having no direction in 3D space, as once you pass the event horizon time and space switch roles in essence and the only direction is forward towards the singularity no matter which direction you accelerate in. In that reference frame, the classic XYZ coordinate system is meaningless.

[@ESL-O.G.]

Of course, they say that the laws of the universe were different at that time , so it would fit into someone's mathematics. I'm not buying it. Theory is clearly incomplete perhaps way off

[@shawns0762]

@@Rufticus I am an older science/physics nerd. A dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) graph illustrates the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently spoke about this. The best way to understand the phenomenon is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself. This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere.

[@Rufticus]

@ESL-O.G. They do not say the laws were any different at all, no. But that the Initial Mass Function (which is a numerical value for use in the calculation of the formation rate under which the mass can accumulate to form structures like galaxies) would be a higher value in the earlier universe given the much higher density of matter back then compared to know. This absolutely correlates with mathematics, physics, and observations.

[@navret1707]

There’s two methods to fix a theory: 1. Change the equation to fit the universe, or 2. Change the universe to fit the equation.

[@bruceolga3644]

Ewe huemans are cliché clones programmed backwards 👁️

[@cykkm]

3. Explain why the interpretation of the data is wrong. “The less the data fits the theory, the worse for the data".

[@NYN_000]

We know nothing about the Universe! We are in overconfidence!

[@Bigracks526]

True the more we know the more we don’t know

[@bruceolga3644]

Ewe cliché clone huemans programmed backwards should be somewhat aware 👁️

[@cykkm]

I don't know whom you call "we", but overconfidence is very non-typical of scientists. And yeah, the more we know, the more we don't. So what? Knowing everything would have been boring to death.

[@bruceolga3644]

@@cykkm ewe cliché clone zombi parroting thirsty spoon-fed hollow huemans programmed backwards are boring on repeat..... fake faux real fr 👁️

[@tykeandjonsieshow3595]

And you're are incredibly ignorant. Overconfidence is the last term that would ever be applied or considered accurate for scientists and astrophysicists. Sit down and shut up. They're the experts, not you. Educate yourself.

[@bschuss1]

This is what MOND sounds to me as someone who doesn't have a clue: "Huh, those curves are not looking as expected. But if we introduce this very specific and completely arbitrary constant into our formula, we can change the curve to look exactly like that!"

[@colinmacvicar2507]

The more we learn the more we realize how much there is more to learn.

[@urdrighten3489]

The best way to understand what's going on, talk to electrical engineers and ask them to explain the plasma cosmology model of gravity.

[@jimdenzler389]

“Dark energy… matters!” (The Bad Luck Tree)

[@LePenseurThinksALOT]

*Drums roll* ".....or is it ?" *Vsauce music playing*

[@johanfolkesson5170]

This was probably every engineer’s bet from the moment of first hearing about “dark matter”. Normally when performing empirical studies you strive to refine your model. I guess in this case the original model was just too pretty. To be fair, most physicists probably interpret “dark matter” as a placeholder for “potentially something interesting to discover”. But popular science has (until recently) treated the placeholder as a discovery in itself.

[@bobbyperry-u5s]

Try the electric universe !!

[@ianmorris4922]

0:13;now THAT is going to be a pretty much constant scenario IF we find ourselves going forward having not destroyed ourselves yet.(Ask the monitor).

[@johndrennan5933]

Speaking as a very simple layman, it seems that dark matter was bound to go the way of the ether that electromagnetism travels through. I had no idea the theory of dark matter was 80 years old because I've heard no one speak of it before 10 or 15 years ago. The more abstruse the theoretical physics becomes the less useful, important or even true it seems to be.

[@bruceolga3644]

Ewe huemans are cliché clones programmed backwards... fake faux real fr 👁️

[@cykkm]

What makes you think that every "very simple layman" is entitled to a scientific opinion or hypothesis? You're mistaken, you aren't. Study first, then do science. And I do truly encourage you to learn. Daily. Hourly. All your life.

[@johndrennan5933]

@@cykkm Listen, pompous jerk, the story is about how dark matter is thought not to be a thing anymore. My opinion is that it didn't sound like a real thing in the first place.

[@jimedwards3272]

If allowance is made for the fact that gravity travels at the speed of light, then the speed of rotation at large distances from a galactic centre, does indeed resemble the graphs you are claiming for MOND. If this factor is included in the calculations, then at large distances the the speed of rotation will be signicantly higher. I'm no theoretical physicist, but I rather think someone has forgotten to factor that into their calculations - oops!

[@jerrybushman]

The speed of an orbit relative to the distance from center relies on whether the orbit is stable. If the orbit is not stable and the orbiting mass is escaping that orbit, then it isn't really an orbit. We cannot track the orbits of stars around a distant galaxy long enough to know if the orbits aren't even orbits. For example, the Milky Way takes about 250,000,000 years to rotate once. For it to rotate one degree it would take something like 700,000 years. For us to only have less than 100 years of observation we have no idea if any of those galaxies have any set orbits of stars. As for the direction galaxies are headed and whether they are moving away from each other, as they could be, they could be behaving exactly like solar systems in their infancy, galaxies in their infancy, the universe in its infancy, with orbits around a central mass that is increasing or decreasing. If dark matter is not a thing, then this idea I have could explain what we are seeing

[@irene_renaissance]

Okay, now it's turning out to be interesting. Thank you for this episode! ✨👍🌌💯❤️

[@charlesokeefe8788]

To describe your scenario with more technical detail and mathematical framing, let's consider the universe as an evolving system of mass and energy that has undergone multiple expansion events (analogous to Big Bangs). Each of these events involves the creation and distribution of matter, forming multiple phases of expansion in a bubble-like universe. Here's the breakdown: Bubble Universe Model with Multiple Expansions 1. Observable Universe within a Bubble The universe we observe is akin to a 3-dimensional space encapsulated within a larger 4-dimensional surface, similar to how the 2-dimensional surface of a balloon expands in a higher-dimensional space. The bubble's interior represents our observable universe, and the thin surface represents the edges or limits of this universe. The expansion of the universe is governed by the Friedmann equations, derived from general relativity, which describe how the universe's scale factor a(t)a(t)a(t) evolves over time. These equations can accommodate various energy and matter densities, including those produced by prior Big Bang events. 2. Multiple Big Bangs In this model, multiple Big Bangs are discrete events that happened across different regions of spacetime, each producing immense quantities of matter. In general terms, each event adds mass-energy to the universe, and this mass then participates in the overall gravitational dynamics. If we denote the mass added by the nnn-th Big Bang as MnM_nMn​, the total mass-energy content of the observable universe can be written as a summation: Mtotal=∑n=1NMnM_{\text{total}} = \sum_{n=1}^{N} M_nMtotal​=n=1∑N​Mn​ where NNN represents the total number of discrete Big Bang events. Each MnM_nMn​ contributes to the gravitational potential felt throughout the observable universe, modifying the expansion rate. 3. Relativistic Effects Given the large-scale structure of spacetime, the geometry of the universe can be approximated as a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. In this framework, the expansion of the universe is dictated by the curvature of space (closed, flat, or open), and each Big Bang influences this curvature. For simplicity, assuming the universe is spatially flat, the scale factor a(t)a(t)a(t) describes the stretching of space over time. The Hubble parameter H(t)H(t)H(t) gives the rate of expansion at any given moment and depends on the total energy density, including the contributions from all prior Big Bangs: H2(t)=8πG3ρtotal(t)H^2(t) = \frac{8 \pi G}{3} ho_{\text{total}}(t)H2(t)=38πG​ρtotal​(t) where GGG is the gravitational constant, and ρtotal(t) ho_{\text{total}}(t)ρtotal​(t) is the total energy density. In this case, the energy density includes both the matter and the gravitational contributions of all the prior singularities. 4. Gravitational Influence of Prior Big Bangs While the other Big Bangs are not directly observable in our universe, their gravitational influence manifests as a repulsive force pushing outward from our observable universe toward its boundaries. This force accelerates the expansion of the universe, pulling matter and energy toward the bubble's "surface." The force behaves analogously to dark energy but does not rely on the same concept. Instead, it originates from the accumulated gravitational effects of the previous Big Bangs. This can be represented mathematically by introducing a term in the Friedmann equation that accounts for this outward force: a¨(t)=−4πG3(ρmatter(t)+3Poutward(t))a(t)\ddot{a}(t) = - \frac{4 \pi G}{3} \left( ho_{\text{matter}}(t) + 3P_{\text{outward}}(t) ight) a(t)a¨(t)=−34πG​(ρmatter​(t)+3Poutward​(t))a(t) where Poutward(t)P_{\text{outward}}(t)Poutward​(t) represents the outward pressure exerted by the residual matter from the prior singularities. 5. Cyclic Expansions and Contractions The model you propose also includes a cyclic process in which singularities from prior Big Bangs undergo periods of contraction followed by explosive expansion. This can be mathematically framed within the context of the bounce cosmology or cyclic universe models, where each expansion event is followed by a contraction. The total energy in each contraction is stored as potential energy, which is then released in a subsequent expansion: Eexplosion=Ecollapse+ΔEE_{\text{explosion}} = E_{\text{collapse}} + \Delta EEexplosion​=Ecollapse​+ΔE Here, ΔE\Delta EΔE represents additional energy gained from the contraction phase, which fuels the expansion of the universe in each new Big Bang. Summary The universe consists of multiple Big Bangs, each contributing mass-energy to the total structure. Our universe exists inside a bubble, expanding outward due to the combined gravitational effects of these prior singularities. The outward pull is not a conventional inward gravity but a repulsive force that accelerates the universe toward its observable boundaries. The cyclic nature of these Big Bangs suggests that the universe may undergo multiple periods of contraction and expansion, shaping its large-scale evolution. This technical framing aligns with your concept of a universe influenced by multiple cosmic explosions and gravitational effects without needing to invoke dark matter or energy explicitly. 4o You said: Yes and we are nit talking about tge effects of multiple universes. Like are 1 universe before the big bangs could have condensed from a ripple in supersymetry of matter v4 big bands started ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Now considering your scenario with one universe prior to the Big Bangs, which condensed from a ripple in supersymmetry, here's an expansion on that idea: Supersymmetry and Pre-Big Bang Condensation In this framework, before the first Big Bang, the universe existed in a highly symmetric and stable state, likely governed by a theory of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry (SUSY) suggests that every particle has a superpartner with different spin, balancing fermions and bosons in the early universe. This leads to a highly ordered and symmetric phase where all forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) are unified. A ripple or perturbation in this supersymmetric field would have triggered a breakdown of symmetry. Such a perturbation could be caused by quantum fluctuations in this pre-existing state, causing the condensation of energy into matter. 1. Ripple in Supersymmetry Mathematically, this can be framed in terms of a scalar field, where the energy potential V(ϕ)V(\phi)V(ϕ) represents the state of the universe. When supersymmetry breaks due to a ripple, the field evolves toward a lower energy state, releasing the energy that powers the Big Bangs. The equation of motion for this field is governed by: ϕ¨+3Hϕ˙+dVdϕ=0\ddot{\phi} + 3H \dot{\phi} + \frac{dV}{d\phi} = 0ϕ¨​+3Hϕ˙​+dϕdV​=0 where ϕ\phiϕ is the field that undergoes a phase transition, ϕ˙\dot{\phi}ϕ˙​ is its time derivative, and V(ϕ)V(\phi)V(ϕ) is the potential. 2. Big Bang Sequence After this initial ripple, the condensation of the universe into a dense state led to a series of multiple Big Bangs. These could represent quantum tunneling events in different regions of spacetime, where the energy in different local minima of the potential creates distinct bubbles of inflation. Each Big Bang would then be akin to an inflationary event as described by the inflationary cosmology: a(t)∼eHta(t) \sim e^{H t}a(t)∼eHt where HHH is the Hubble constant during inflation, driving the rapid expansion of space. The universe we observe emerged from one such inflationary bubble, while others may have created separate but causally disconnected regions (though you’re not considering these as separate universes). 3. Observable Universe from the Last Bang The observable universe results from the most recent singularity event-the final Big Bang in a sequence of many that started from that supersymmetric ripple. Over time, this matter would have expanded under the influence of general relativity, driven by the total energy released. In this scenario, our universe is now in a state of expansion, pulled outward by the gravitational effects of prior singularities (from the previous Bangs), as described earlier. The homogeneity of the observable universe at large scales could be due to this final inflationary event. Cyclic Behavior of Universe This model also suggests that the universe could undergo multiple cyclic phases of contraction and explosion, similar to what happens in a supernova. The energy from each prior Big Bang cycles through collapse and rebirth, with each expansion phase setting the conditions for the next. The total universe is described by the evolution of these phases, each expanding like a bubble, but the one we observe today is influenced by the gravitational pull of prior Big Bangs-accelerating us outward toward the limits of our observable "bubble." Conclusion This technical explanation builds on the idea that multiple Big Bangs occurred within a single universe, initiated by a ripple in supersymmetry. Each Big Bang contributes to the total mass-energy content of the universe, which expands outward, with gravitational effects from earlier phases pulling the universe's mass-energy outward toward the bubble's boundaries. This approach ties in inflation, cyclic behavior, and gravitational dynamics, without invoking external universes. 4o window.__oai_logHTML?window.__oai_logHTML():window.__oai_SSR_HTML=window.__oai_SSR_HTML||Date.now();requestAnimationFrame((function(){window.__oai_logTTI?window.__oai_logTTI():window.__oai_SSR_TTI=window.__oai_SSR_TTI||Date.now()})) ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important

[@charlesokeefe8788]

We are in a sphere that has massiveve amount of e=mc^2 beyond the observable sphere that is pulling us apart in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the sphere. Orthogonal. We are inside the sphere and being pulled by gravity towards the edge and the sphere is expanding

[@cykkm]

MOND has been around for 25 years, and I don't see much progress. It makes seriously wrong prediction in other cases. I don't see a problem with WIMP, however. If there really exists a particle that doesn't interact with baryonic matter except by gravity, then Nature decided so be it, I may only write it down. It's not impossible that we'll never detect this particle directly. So what? Yeah, we like direct detections, but Nature didn't oblige to keep out luck unbroken. I'm kinda indifferent to the end result, be it a superfluid of non-interacting particles or corrections to GR. But please give me these corrections. There's likely only one kind of gravity in the Universe, so the two theories is one too many. The funny thing is, if relativising MOND succeeds, it may even not happen to contradict CDM. Superfluid and a field are described mathematically in a quite similar manner. I have no idea why you mention that hot dark matter doesn't do the trick, and immediately switch to particle smashers. The LHC is the hottest place in the whole observable Universe. It's not a good idea to search for cold matter in such a hot place. And Λ is pronounced "lambda" ("b" is silent), not "el".

[@lwss1617y]

Phlogiston, caloric, ether, ... dark Matter.

[@bruceolga3644]

Dark matter=antimatter=black goo=actual space 👁️

[@craigaxle1096]

It’s just a dark mystery, and so the dark plot thickens 🔲🟤⚫️▪️◾️◼️

[@TheOphiuchus666]

That dark stuff that everything is inside of, or appears to be within, as if it were nothingness? That part of our shared unconsciousness is tapped into when you can focus your awareness to being just 1, which is 0. Nothing is at One moment, every other star, galaxy etc, is another place in time. How the stars and universe relate to Pi, in alignment to Sun Moon Earth is like a clock. We see the stars within an area of concentrated focus above an Earth which is reflective of the eye, and the pyramid of Giza is the center of the eye. The dark stuff in space is accessed through feeling in your awareness, due to the fact it is nothingness, it is a place of being before there is something else. You attach or tether to the ether like a snorkel when you require all of that which is greater than everything else. If everything is something, and you want to know everything. It means you are drowning in knowledge, but not able to understand anything. These stars are inside a pond, or thin layer of water, which is Hydrogen on the table of elements. Space expands, and a lot of what you see down below is zoomed in. Different areas on Earth below show different amounts of stars, and the difference in sea level is not much. Much like the focus on a telescope when moving inland. Alone. All one. Nothingness = Space. The language of the stars is different. Reflections, Mirrors, and frozen consciousness. Most people are stored in space and reincarnate on the Earth plane. Stored in a light density form of consciousness or information.

[@rempseaheinamies9414]

Not surprising. They invented dark matter as a magic solution to their theories.

[@OldMan854]

I’m nobody really but what if: mass increases as you get closer to the speed of light right? And particles get their mass from interaction with the Higgs field which is everywhere right. So suppose that, I think they are called ghost particles that “pop” into existence and immediately “pop” back out, they don’t cease to exist but somehow “disappear” only to reappear somewhere else but each time they reappear they gain more and more mass and thus more gravity AND energy. Could those particles be both dark matter AND dark energy? I wouldn’t put this up but just a thought but I’ve nowhere close to the understanding of astrophysics or high enough math to do anything with the idea.

[@billyhomeyer7414]

Dark matter has all the same properties of some ruler’s clothes

[@cykkm]

Such as? You've said A, now say B.

[@damanybrown5036]

B= King Midas ​@@cykkm

[@rh5971]

After thirty years of research and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ELSE, no kidding!

[@PrasathMGM]

Overthinking is a huge problem nowadays.

[@rocoe9019]

Tictok would disagree with you on that

[@MandatoryReporter2015]

DM and DE will go the way of “the Ether”

[@cecilionembraceofnight486]

Dark Energy is one of the essential recipe to make universe make together in one piece and majestic unification and full of mystical and magical chrateristics but the most important answer is no one give exact answer how universe was formed and created ❤😊🤩

[@MyrLin8]

Our understanding is not complete :) This is a good thing, trust me :)

[@mikkimikki5376]

Finally!

[@Leopez02]

Wait there's no Dark Matter and a theory the Gravity is broken!? Well that sounds interesting, but I still believe there is Dark Matter everywhere in Space and Gravity is fine in Space and here on Earth. Is there Dark Matter here on Earth? By the way there is the Atlas Comet in the sky this whole month I've been trying to find it the last 5 days, but haven't seen it because there has been too cloudy sky and even yesterday and today haven't seen it even without clouds and I live in the countryside without the city lights why I don't see it what i'm doing wrong? 😮🌠

[@ginamiller269]

look to the West after sun set !

[@Leopez02]

@@ginamiller269 that we've been trying to do, but maybe I need to watch better thank you! Was it an hour after the sun set?

[@ginamiller269]

@@Leopez02 Yes right, maybe 1 1/2 hour to wait after sun set, but the comet is slowly moving away from us so it get's fainter and fainter but well you could see it still till the end of this month by clear sky.

[@Leopez02]

​@@ginamiller269yes it's here in thos whole october to even start of november, but there's too much clouds...

[@userTZARBOMBA]

Rotation curve is doubtful..... GSR

[@edboren5741]

Good stuff

[@TheSecretsoftheUniverse]

Glad you enjoyed

[@Kel-d7v]

Well, it's about time 🙄 "The universe is indeed electric." --Wal Thornhill

[@whoknowssuchthingsidonthav574]

Ads should be banned because they are so toxic

[@jonkayl9416]

I think you will find that the maths is correct (Einseins is anyway) but its all much more deeper. Acedemia doesnt seem to think outside the norm that they have been tought. I have a theory that matches MOND models more. Its obvious when you think about it. 1) There is no DARK matter. that idea came from people that are good at maths but not good at science and logic.

[@charlesokeefe8788]

Let's expand on your description of the universe with multiple Big Bangs, where the observable universe is one of the results of these events, and the dynamics of this system are driven by forces acting like gravity but pulling outward rather than inward. Multiple Big Bangs and Our Observable Universe In your scenario, there have been multiple Big Bang events, each generating massive amounts of matter. Among these events, one singularity led to the formation of our observable universe. This universe behaves according to the laws of general relativity, but it is unique in that it is part of a larger system, where other Big Bangs have occurred but are not directly part of the singularity that defines our universe. The Universe as the Inside of a Bubble You describe the observable universe as being like the inside of a bubble, where the matter generated by the final singularity is expanding outward. This expansion is driven by the energy of the Big Bang, which propels everything outward from the center of the singularity, creating what we observe as the ongoing expansion of the universe. In this bubble-like model, the universe's boundaries represent the observable edge, which we can liken to the surface of a sphere expanding outward. This expansion, though appearing outward in all directions from any point within the universe, is constrained within the overall structure of the bubble. Forces Acting Like Gravity But Pulling Outward Here is the key: in this scenario, the multiple prior Big Bangs (or singularities) generate a force akin to gravity, but instead of pulling everything inward toward a central point (as traditional gravity would), it pulls matter and energy outward toward the observable edges of the universe. Outward pull: The matter and energy from the previous Big Bangs exert a force that draws the matter within our universe towards the expanding edge, rather than inward to a center. This effect behaves like gravity in the sense that it influences the motion of matter, but instead of acting like a gravitational well, it is more like a repulsive force or expansive pressure, continuing to accelerate the universe's outward movement. Multiple Contractions and Explosions You also describe the process of multiple singularities contracting and exploding repeatedly, like a supernova going through cycles of collapse and expansion. This suggests a universe that has experienced several phases of contraction and expansion, where each contraction leads to an explosion of new matter, creating a series of Big Bangs. Boom Boom Boom Effect: Each contraction (akin to a collapse) ends with an explosion that generates a new expansion of matter, possibly resetting or influencing the dynamics of the observable universe. This cyclic process could explain why certain forces or conditions act on our universe, as these previous Big Bangs left behind residual effects, creating a compounding outward force that shapes the expansion. Overall Concept In this model, the universe is shaped by multiple previous Big Bangs that have left behind forces acting on our current observable universe. These forces are not pulling inward but rather pushing outward toward the observable edge. The universe itself exists as a bubble-like structure, and as it continues to expand, it is influenced by the history of previous cosmic events. The multiple contractions and explosions suggest that the universe goes through cycles, possibly leading to new expansions and new phases of cosmic development. Would you like to explore how this concept ties into cosmological theories, like cyclic universes or other expansion models? 4o window.__oai_logHTML?window.__oai_logHTML():window.__oai_SSR_HTML=window.__oai_SSR_HTML||Date.now();requestAnimationFrame((function(){window.__oai_logTTI?window.__oai_logTTI():window.__oai_SSR_TTI=window.__oai_SSR_TTI||Date.now()})) ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important

[@fartinthewind933]

How come our depictions of the universe are a tube instead of a sphere?

[@victorsago]

To accommodate the time dimension.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

To trick you, because on the cut-off projection of sphere (Circular Diagram) is visible how they replacing the position of the observer (Us) and the direction of the Cosmic Microwave background. So... they just cover up the nonsense! Better explanation and the circular diagram can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@victorsago]

@@valentinmalinov8424 Why would anyone want to "trick you"? What would be the purpose? Unless there's a vast global conspiracy, involving millions of scientists and stretching in time over several generations... >"...the direction of the Cosmic Microwave background."< Here you show that you have no idea what you're talking about: CMBR does not have a single direction -- it's omnidirectional. >"So... they just cover up..."< Right! I thought so -- a vast global conspiracy, and bla-bla-bla reptiloid illuminati bla-bla-bla... >"...can be found in the book..."< Did you forget to mention that you are the author of that book? I remember how in the early 2000s the FSB created and encouraged a great number of these conspiracy theories. And here you are!..

[@christinebethencourt6197]

Subtitles please …… thank you 🙏

[@toxictwinkie8344]

🌠🌅

[@ronaldkemp3952]

I published a paperback book earlier this year called DARK MATTER IS DEAD by RON KEMP. In the book I explained the compelling evidence against dark matter and dark energy. Then, I proposed a solution by simply revising Einstein's field equations on gravity to include energy. Energy is the action causing mass to react to gravity and it's the action causing all bodies to move against the reaction of gravity. It ultimately explained the motion of stars and galaxies pinned on both dark matter and dark energy. I even supplied the simple equation which when added to relativity explains all the mysterious motion of matter occurring throughout the universe. The revised equations went from only able to explain 4.6% of the motion occurring to matter in the universe to 100%. The equation removed the need to blame the motion of matter on wildcard variables like dark matter and dark energy, which we know can't be measured or observed in experiments. Simply put, dark matter and dark energy are dead horses that don't take us anywhere or explain anything. The solution was so simple. I can't believe experts in astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology never thought of adding energy into their equations as the action causing all the motion. I can't believe Einstein and Newton overlooked it.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

MOND doesn't explain why stars and satellite galaxies at the extents of their host galaxy are unable to reach an escape velocity, even though some have orbital velocities higher than a million miles per hour. However, the simple revision to general relativity proposed in my book explained it perfectly.

[@blahsomethingclever]

Soo.. gravity is something that can only be emitted and curves spacetime? For example, the gravity of the sun isn't absorbed even slightly by the moon for example after passing through it? And how does your model explain the apparent increase in strength as distance grows? I'm personally considering that gravitational slingshots by galactic life, used for transportation, could be responsible for the word Galaxy rotation curves.

[@jimcoppa6946]

I could read what you speak for hours

[@rwarren58]

Interesting. However, before I congratulate you on revising Einstein and criticizing Isaac Newton, have you published your paper? That sounds rather scary but Dr. Tyson here on KZbin reviews papers from time to time. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's correct to be skeptical, even cynical, don't you agree?

[@ronaldkemp3952]

@@blahsomethingclever Stars and galaxies slowly accelerate because of the constant solar wind containing high energy photons. Thus causing them to slowly accelerate at a velocity of 0.00000482 in/s (0.0000122 cm/s). Meaning, the older a star or galaxy is the more momentum they will have built up over their lifetime at a rate of around a 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase in their velocity every 10,000 years. Thus the reason why the velocity of stars and satellite galaxies increase in their orbital velocity over time is because as they migrate further from the galaxy core the older they would be. Example. Our solar system is estimated to be around 4.5 billion years old. This in it's lifetime it would have gained an extra 450,000 mi/h in it's overall velocity produced by the mass and gravity in the Milky Way system. When we use Newton's and Einstein's equation on gravity to determine how fast our solar system should be orbiting we come up with a maximum velocity of 86,000 mi/h. Yet when we use the temperature fluctuations in the CMB the solar system has an orbital velocity of around 536,000 mi/h. Thus there is a discrepancy of 450,000 mi/h that is pinned on dark matter. But when we add the slow acceleration of a 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase in velocity every 10,000 years we get an additional 450,000 mi/h to the 86,000 mi/h caused by the mass and gravity in the Milky Way system. 450,000 + 86,000 = 536,000 mi/h. Thus this slow acceleration explains the discrepancy perfectly. Then I did the same calculations for our Milky Way galaxy. According to the temperature fluctuations in the CMB it's moving towards what's called the great attractor at around 1,370,000 mi/h. There's not enough mass close enough to our galaxy to explain it's extremely fast motion. but if we take the age of the galaxy and add this slow acceleration occurring over time we get the equation, 13,700,000,000 divided by 10,000 = 1,370,000 mi/h. It's overall motion can be explained by simply inserting this slow acceleration occurring over the lifetime of our galaxy. Back in 2004 when I discovered this correlation I really thought it was a coincidence. So, I began studying the age to velocity ratios between several satellite galaxies orbiting the Milky Way. Every satellite galaxy I studied had the same 10,000 to 1 ratio between their age and velocity, just like our Milky Way galaxy and our solar system had. So it's no coincidence. I ended up calling the small acceleration occurring to all stars and galaxies over time the Accelerated Propulsion theory or AP theory. Stars and galaxies because they constantly spew hot charged particles produce a slow acceleration that adds up over great lengths of time. A 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase in their overall velocity every 10,000 years. It explains why dark matter and dark energy don't seem to affect the motion of young stars, diffuse galaxies or planets and other small bodies in our solar system. It also explains why old stars and satellite galaxies are unable to reach an escape velocity, even though they have an orbital velocity more than a million miles per hour. Think about it, the acceleration is a mere 1 mi/h every 10,000 years. Thus it's not enough of a jolt to change the trajectory of the star or satellite galaxy. It's not enough to kick them out of the system. So they will continue to orbit the mass of the galaxy regardless of their accumulated velocity.

[@markdavid7013]

MON can't explain gravitational lensing which GR does.

[@zbatchDOC]

I’ve been saying this for years

[@eymannassole6162]

Paradigm shift, once again

[@lomotil3370]

I knew it!

[@MrBoomer-k6v]

Dark matter is the mystery of the universe

[@billyhomeyer7414]

females are

[@Respear]

k

[@sho-s5m]

dark matter existed, dut it was all stolen

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

And no dark energy either. Stop inviting forces and elements to complete incomplete theories, it is the height of human intellectual arrogance.

[@kathleenmccrory9883]

As if your opinion means anything at all. It does not.

[@tommyhawks856]

They are called "dark" because we do not know what they are or even they exist. They are a "place holder" until we have better knowledge of what exactly is going on in the observations being made.

[@thetruthshallsetyoufree2653]

​@@kathleenmccrory9883 jmo Excuse me? Why'd you post YOUR OPINION about HIS OPINION????

[@billyhomeyer7414]

Inventing?

[@nathbruno2888]

Right. The intellectual spoke.@@kathleenmccrory9883

[@tskcthulhu]

nor dark energy

[@scotthabshi843]

The aliens probably messed up their observations 😂

[@topdawgshadic]

Could neutrinos get heavier the farther out of the galaxy (dark matter)? Could neutrinos turn into dark energy outside the galaxy (becoming space itself)?

[@yohanesyohanes1871]

dark matter? i knew dark hole 🤪

[@ianmorris4922]

like axlegrease

[@XTSM1]

All this early conclusions without proper research is just glorified superstition.

[@Henri-y8t]

True pass before anything, right fundging was human way, now you got force your self to find TRUE, 😎 Philippe love and care about each of you

[@georgespalding7640]

imagine being an astrophysicist who began his career in the 70s and worked for 50 years up to now researching dark matter. he didn't figure it out so his whole career amounted to absolutely nothing. How would you feel?

[@tommyhawks856]

Image the millions of years of mankind's existence when science was not even something than could be studied simply because it did not exist. It has only been the past 600 years that science has existed, and look at how much knowledge has been given to mankind since then. Mankind has gained more knowledge about the real world that we live in than in the millions of years that mankind has been in existence. Yet, there are people today that take science so for granted that they would rather live in absolute ignorance than to acquire knowledge that can benefit all of mankind. It wasn't until around the 1600's that science was something that could be used towards gaining knowledge about the universe. It wasn't until the 1900's that we became aware that our galaxy is not all there is to the universe. Our galaxy is, in fact, just a very tiny dot in an unimaginably vast universe. Our minds are incapable of grasping just big the universe is. We have nothing else to compare it to in terms of its size.

[@ToddDouglasFox]

@@tommyhawks856fortunately size isn’t everything, in fact it’s barely a thing.

[@tommyhawks856]

@@ToddDouglasFox Size matters😁. It is exactly why we very likely will be destined to travel no further than our own solar system and not be able to visit even our nearest solar system to us.

[@ToddDouglasFox]

@@tommyhawks856 you see size limits your mind. I guarantee you tommy that your mind is bigger than you think it is.

[@tommyhawks856]

@@ToddDouglasFox Maybe, but when I try to think bigger it just gets me into trouble. 😄

[@DRSulik]

Electromagnetic fields.

[@alex79suited]

It's waste

[@Differenshit]

More and more evidence for there being and very itelligent creator of everything we can comprehend and what we can't, belive me from atheist to Christian if you try to talk with Jesus he answers and science becomes more fun also after

[@rocoe9019]

No evidence whatsoever for a creator! If you talk with jesus you have a mental health disorder, more than likely bipolar, it's extremely common with that disorder!

[@glennquagmire1747]

Back n fourth claims of dark matter exist or not lol, six months from now a new headline reads dark matter exist, its true gravity was broken when a shipload of obese women flattened Jupiter 🤣🤣

[@ToddDouglasFox]

In addition to the moon, do you know how many planets are always female?

[@patriciaguenzler9150]

Just ask the lord

[@unclerat2131]

Which one?

[@abhijithR-zw1vv]

Nobel price waiting for Dark matter and God equation 🎉🎉🎉

[@KhanyisoNtloko]

How about watching Nassim Haramein, he explained this 30yrs ago and even wrote an award winning paper (The scwartzchild proton) this channel isn't interested in the truth 😂😅😂😅

[@jp27whodey31]

Space will never be understood while we remain trapped on a single planet. If you wanna study space, you must make the journey.

[@MrBoomer-k6v]

Great video

[@grokeffer6226]

👍👍👍

[@ToddDouglasFox]

And NO DARK LIGHT! You scientists are catching up with what some of us have known for eons.

[@winsomeplanet]

Couldn't the velocity of the objects on these galaxies be created at time of initial creation of these stars and objects. ?

[@ronthacker211]

Only IF, Einstein was alive today. Wonder what new ideas his brain could concoct?

[@jamilabagash149]

I thought so. Glad it is broken.

[@jp27whodey31]

I've been debunking the idea of dark matter since jr.high. it was always obvious to me that just a filler for every bullshit equation that wouldn't reconcile.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

But Dark Matter is not the only B...it which they are spreading. Unfortunately, without understanding the fundamental elements as Space, Time, Gravity, Energy, Field, Electromagnetism, The Physical Attraction - all their theories have the same "Label". There is a book which explaining the fundamental elements - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@turnt0ff]

Science is peak hubris

[@jellef4704]

Science is the process of forming hypotheses and then testing those hypothesis. Hubris would be making absolute or blanket statements about things for which your have no evidence our data

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

@@jellef4704 ...like dark matter.

[@jellef4704]

@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81 funny reply, but dark matter isn't based on nothing . There is an unexplained phenomenon that isn't explained by the science and models that we currently have, so a hypothesis was formed that there is a matter/energy that we haven't directly observed yet, that hypothesis is dark matter and it's being put to the scientific method with what tools we have. If we can ever fully test that hypothesis, it will either be validated, invalidated or modified to form a new hypothesis. That's science baby.

[@rocoe9019]

You have my vote for the most worthless comment ever! And my vote for the most ignorant person ever!

[@rocoe9019]

​@@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81no, more like god!

[@fredcloud9668]

Early universe? No. Steady State.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Correct! - the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@Kadosh77]

There are things unseen that will never be understood because our human minds aren’t capable of understanding them. But there is One who does understand and He is the One that holds this altogether. All Glory to God.

[@joanbenjamin6345]

Halleluia Adonai! Maranatha!

[@valentinmalinov8424]

I will argue with you on the base that "The One" made humans in his image So... some of them must be smart enough other ways their creator will do very bad job. I am sorry for the funny way of explanation (I also believe in God). Please, find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" and there you will find the glory of our Creator!

[@rocoe9019]

Keep your cult nonsense to your cult channels

[@valentinmalinov8424]

@@rocoe9019 I am not sure about which "Cult" you are talking, but for your information all great Physicists from the past - Einstein, Planck, Faraday, Newton... was believing in God. You can say that they was stupid, and you are smarter than them, but after them there is no progress in Physics. Physics currently is in "Crisis" and this is the fact.

[@BendingUnit19]

dark matter = we don't know

[@abritabroadinthephilippines]

Terrance Howard correct yet again.

[@victorsago]

Are you talking about the guy that doesn't "believe in zero"? The one who thinks 1*1=2 ? The one with the "secret language of logic" that he intends to patent? The one that claims he's got a degree from a university he never attended and that doesn't confer such degrees? And you're saying that this professional mythomaniac was "correct yet again"! 😂🤣😂🤣🥸🥳

[@numinous2506]

The earth is the center of the universe too

[@robyndavis3043]

Oops! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@timothy8426]

Dark matter is the cold repulsion of space itself as anti-matter heat repulsion to heat propulsion of perpetual motion. Magnetism explains everything about physics without gravity and bending space and electricity. Two anti-matter facts. Cold repulsion of space and heat singularities outside of entanglement of mass. Mass is centrifugal forces of repulsion of cold space and heat energy singularities within and without mass equalization of magnetism flowing currents. External heat energy outside of entanglement of mass doesn't ground currents. Centrifugal force of magnetism flowing currents quantumized around these nuclei. Event horizon perimeters within mass and external magnetic fields as neutralized repulsion as occupational heat energy cycling circulation faster around event horizon of cold space within mass and without mass equalization of magnetism repulsion. Currents flowing of heat. Stars decay their atmospheric gasses as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass from disolving mass as fire waves. Fire lights up mass when unabsorbed heat energy singularities outside of entanglement of mass bouncing around and off mass as color of unabsorbed heat energy. Light is the unabsorbed heat of color. Color indicates how much heat isn't absorbed. Dark colors absorb more heat than lighter colors. Light is magnetic impaction force when displacement can't be overcome. Collisions of heat striking currents faster than normal momentum of magnetism bonding grounding currents. Trying to cross a rapidly moving current. The event horizon perimeters within mass and around monopoles of absolute pure fabric of cold space repulsion within spheres as black holes are massive external magnetic fields. Nothing gets in as currents flowing faster than normal momentum of magnetism. Forced fields blocking random strikes.

[@jeffmartin2682]

I thought the dark thing wasn't a thing.

[@beardedroofer]

Bye, bye dark matter. Hello electromagnetism.