Strange Discoveries About Dark Matter Including Immortal Stars

[@Uaarkson]

Anton, I am a depressed person who is also obsessed with the stars. You are my hero.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Such an wonderful person.

[@VirtualWillE]

as someone who suffers from severe depression too, you're definitely not alone. these cosmological YT channels are one thing that brings me joy, and i hope they continue to do the same for you. stay strong, friend! :)

[@RaptureduToit]

Your comment reminds me of this verse, keep the faith, keep looking up! Col 3:2 Be mindful of things above, not on things on the earth.

[@fishypaw]

Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown And things seem hard or tough And people are stupid Obnoxious or daft And you feel that you've had Quite enough Just remember that you're standing On a planet that's evolving And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second So it's reckoned The sun that is the source of all our power The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see Are moving at a million miles a day In an outer spiral arm, at four hundred thousand miles an hour In the galaxy we call the Milky Way Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars It's a hundred thousand light years side to side It bulges in the middle, six thousand light years thick But out by us, it's just a thousand light years wide We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point We go 'round every two hundred million years And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions In this amazing and expanding universe The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding In all of the directions it can whizz As fast as it can go, of the speed of light, you know Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure How amazingly unlikely is your birth And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'Cause it's bugger all down here on Ear

[@zanderzephyrlistens]

​@@fishypaw Douglas Adams?

[@bensimonjoules4402]

Anton I would love to see a longer video format where once every X you connect and reflect all the things you covered during X, that would be super! Love the content🎉

[@DavidKutzler]

Dark Matter Halo 1, "Did you feel that? I think I hit something." Dark Matter Halo 2, "Looks like you hit a star stream." Dark Matter Halo 2, "Damn! That's going to leave a mark."

[@Duke_Romilar_III]

No worries, it will buff out...

[@AnnouncerBox_base]

thats gonna *leave a mark*

[@armchairgravy8224]

It's looking more and more like there's a dark matter zoo.

[@deanroddey2881]

Dark Matters

[@velnz5475]

And im not sure if we've completely ruled out that we dont have all the interactions of normal matter figured out.

[@ModestestRUST]

@@velnz5475it’s truly that simple. It’s astounding how many people don’t understand placeholders

[@OldManMontgomery]

I like this series (channel, I suppose). Whereas Mr. (Doctor?) Petrov is not the most animated speaker, he is pretty easy to understand, has solid subjects, and can explain some rather complicated subjects in 'plain language'. l like all of this.

[@gwroman]

I would enjoy these more if he were more animated and had more emphasis personally. I'd probably fall asleep in his class.

[@OldManMontgomery]

@@gwroman Many summers ago, when I was in High School (it was the law) I had a Chemistry class first period. (Never my best time for being awake.) The teacher lectured in a fashion much like Dr. Petrov, but with a little less enthusiasm. I did however learn not to mix acid and base indiscriminately. Finished with a 'B' grade (better than I expected). I - after several summers (ahem) - I do better at listening to the information more than the person. But I do understand your point of view.

[@paulohagan3309]

I get the impression that for Anton the information is the most important and that it's not necessary to dance around and make stupid jokes every 60 seconds. Too many presenters try too hard and some people are just not suited to it. For me and I'm guessing, many other people [judging from his success] Anton's style is just fine. He projects his enthusiasm quietly without having to act like he's high.

[@OldManMontgomery]

@@paulohagan3309 I must agree. I wonder what it's like to speak with him over coffee. Or tea.

[@bugsy742]

@@gwroman😂 sounds like a you problem buddy 👍

[@bigjermboktown6976]

Love this channel and love the consistency

[@DharmaDerelict]

HOPE YOU’RE DOING WELL ANTON!!!! STAY WONDERFUL!!!🎉🎉

[@erikottema2620]

❤

[@MyraSeavy]

Anton, what wonderful inspiration for the sense of wonder!! When it literally makes you stop and think and dream about what's out there, it's incredible! I personally give you the credit for your hard work and how you share it with us regular folks! I appreciate you Anton!! 😊❤

[@tricky2917]

Obligatory reminder that Dark Matter isn't a theory, it's the name we gave heaps of observational data. While we have many theories on what could be it, to date none explain all observations.

[@oldmech619]

If you don’t understand something, just say it’s dark matter.

[@FloydThePink]

@@oldmech619 ok. You are dark matter.

[@oldmech619]

@@FloydThePink Thanks. That was good

[@theJACKATIC]

Maybe its two things then

[@oldmech619]

@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv Good. I was just thinking of that too.

[@arctic_haze]

Now that MOND is off the table, all we need now is to discover the particles of dark matter. Well, I know that this has been the main problem for the last 30 years. But I still hope we will solve that within my lifetime.

[@weis1869]

MOND has been off and then on the table quite a bit over the course of the last three years. What is the qualitative difference of its latest Presumed-with-confidence irrelevance?

[@Rapzody]

*How is your comment 4 hours ago?!*

[@maofria1452]

MOND is not off the table, Anton is exagerating this because dark matter is his favorite theory

[@dustinswatsons9150]

​@@Rapzodyyes

[@MindForgedManacle]

​@@weis1869 The difference is these new observations suggest the Dark Matter phenomenon is even more increasingly likely to require something like a particle to explain and do not mesh with the attempt to significantly alter our gravitational theories at that scale. Which means MOND-type theories, where alterations to our theories of gravity are done, are much less likely. It's not presumed, it's the direct logical consequence of both our new observations and the continual failure of MOND theories to explain existing data as well as DM.

[@davidpescod7573]

Thanks, Anton, for bringing mysteries into our mundane lives. Always wonderful to hear from you. Much heartfelt appreciation

[@pl8154]

Given that subatomic particles are both a wave and a particle, depending on how it is measured, why assume dark matter is definitely a particle? Wouldn't it be more likely to be something very different than the particles we can detect? Given that we've become so good at detecting and manipulating particles, and that we can't directly detect or manipulate dark matter, does it make sense to assume it's a particle? It may be time to start thinking outside this particle 'box'.

[@Johncornwell103]

I think dark matter is just gravity in a quantum superposition state

[@MindForgedManacle]

Wave-Particle duality. Particles *are* waves. The video is literally about how new observations make it much more likely that a particle (which is a wave) is needed to explain what we're seeing (as opposed to significantly rethinking our understanding of gravity at large scales).

[@pl8154]

@@Johncornwell103 No argument here, however, current particle physics insists that gravity is a particle too, the graviton! Though no one has ever discovered it either! Everything is a particle in their minds, and this is simply not the case. Again, this is a leftover attitude from the Materialist, Atomists and Mechanists of the Enlightenment, and it's time to move beyond this limitation.

[@MindForgedManacle]

​@@pl8154 You're just using terms you don't understand. Materialism isn't even a current ontology. You might say "physicalism" but even that is more of a philosophical term than one physicists think in terms of. Really, the problem is you don't know what you're talking about. Physicists don't claim the graviton exists. It would be consistent with previous non-fictional forces having a corresponding force-carrying particle. But gravity is well known to be in need of greater understanding (e.g. at the level of quantum mechanics and at the Big Bang and at black holes). Particle physicists certainly aren't claiming the graviton "must exist". One mainstream attempt to explain gravity at quantum scales - called Loop Quantum Gravity - does not include the concept of gravitons existing at all. Please go look into things before speaking about them.

[@pl8154]

@@MindForgedManacle Why so rude, friend??? The remnant of the Enlightenment sciences and philosophies play a much greater role in current science than many understand. It has shaped our concepts of reality to the extreme and those concepts are very active and influential today. I've read them all, and their influences are alive and well and mostly very limiting. Now I'm sure you're a genius and know far more in modern terms than anyone else here, that's why you react the way you do in belittling others, but you're obviously not well-read in the depths and origins of these sciences, thus your term- "current ontology". Have a nice time insulting someone else. Thanks.

[@thecroft6070]

I always wish upon immortal stars

[@egelNorg]

makes no difference who you are

[@jakelynbrook]

Keep it up and you will obtain immortality!🧐🤔🤫😎🇺🇸 4:59

[@truthdrifter]

Only God is immortal

[@ZealothXyven]

@@truthdrifter Yeah, gods are generally said to be immortal entities. Bit confused why you're bringing fantasy into a conversation about astronomy.

[@laniakealocal1934]

Which god?​@@truthdrifter

[@codycurnutt940]

Without trying to be too serious here. This could pose an explanation for the Fermi Paradox. Any life formed on the star itself or an orbiting body would have a vastly different set of criteria when looking for life. One that would rule our system out for their type of life but could become interested if they happened upon us in their travels assuming they would ever want to leave such a resource rich home in the first place.

[@George-rk7ts]

A wonderful inspiration for the sense of wonder.

[@MyraSeavy]

Well said!!! 😊🎉

[@volrath7367]

This whole video is basically “we have some ideas but don’t actually know” 😂 Love your content Anton!! ❤❤

[@C21H30O2]

That's dark matter... it's a guess because the math don't add up...

[@brendalong3852]

Isn't that science? Always new questions and answers.

[@danielb.1567]

@@C21H30O2 God sent His son Jesus to die for you. The end is near as End Times Bible prophecies are happening all over the world right now. Repent and ask Jesus into your heart! Be saved now~!!

[@ChrisFord-wh1gl]

Without admitting it’s all 5th tier theoretical This means that it assumes as fact 5 layers of previous theoretical gibberish that was also (proven) by many layers of self confirming theoretical contradictions

[@pat8988]

You’re right! It’s easy to claim that stars “acquire” dark matter as long as you don’t have to explain how, especially considering that dark matter is not supposed to interact with normal matter.

[@Puketapu]

This was really cool. I love the idea of dark matter stars!

[@willd4686]

Thanks Anton! Always a pleasure

[@SeminalSimian]

Dark matter has been a long lived enigma. It's such a tough puzzle for us. I so hope that I live to see a real understanding of it.

[@Jokers_Yugioh666]

We need a anton and pbs spacetime livestream together 👍👍🔥🔥

[@Hackanhacker]

That would be GOOD !!!!!

[@slenderman3310]

the fact that mond got disproven ironically proves it's a better hypothesis, cause atleast it's A hypothesis. dark matter is just a blanket term for something we don't understand.

[@major__kong]

Made up stuff to explain things we don't understand and requires belief. Well, that would be many of the hallmarks of a religion. And believers don't see the flaws in their belief system. You're right. At least the MOND people had a theory. The dark energy and dark matter people are like, we can't explain this, so we'll just call it dark stuff. And they still don't know what it is or have theories for what it is. And they aren't as bothered with inconsistencies in dark stuff as MOND stuff. That isn't science. That's unconscious bias.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

That's actually true. Astrophysicists call dark matter an "observable effect for which a cause has not yet been discovered." Dark matter is an observation (Dr. Becky Smethurst, PhD Oxford University) created an entire video explaining what you wrote.

[@2xKTfc]

@@douglaswilkinson5700 Dark matter sure feels like aether or phlogiston, invented to fix one problem by creating two new ones. Yes, I'm sad that MOND didn't work out, I liked that model a lot. :)

[@johnbox271]

I was puzzled when Anton said, "Proof of the existence of Dark Matter".

[@WhiskerBiscuit1]

It's literally just the bending of spacetime.

[@MakoHazard]

Anton, I love your videos! Would you consider doing a video on the new study saying that dark matter may just be negative gravity? (I've probably got that wrong lol)

[@jamez2]

What would Dark Matter/Immortal Stars mean for the "heat death" of the universe?

[@axle.student]

Immortal universe :P

[@arctic_haze]

The energy of the stars comes (according to this hypothesis)n from dark matter annihilation. The amount of dark matter within the galaxy is finite so the stars are not really immortal. They have just a much longer life span than "normal" stars.

[@yngvar1800]

Hi Anton!

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton.? Thank you. 🤘☺️🫡

[@Hackanhacker]

Omg thank you so much For Mentioning H-R Diagram! That help so much understanding the type of stars Im looking for. Totally printing that and putting it on my wall xD Totally not playing EliteDangerous here ! ahaha

[@petepanteraman]

4:46 I was hoping to see dragging or acceleration, because gaps can be made by alot of things, even magnetic bands or light but that's a maybe

[@hermancharlesserrano1489]

I love thought experiments, so let me posit this strange notion: Mass might leave a gravitational wake through space-time, a kind of churning space-time drag that in itself could give rise to a virtual mass-like effect On the smaller planetary and solar scale, the effect calms/smooths out quickly enough, but at the galactic scale and upward the effects of the wake might be more prolonged, allowing for both slipstreaming and resistance effects, creating…resonances of spin…angular gravitational wakes, like the peaks and troughs formed as water circles a plug hole There is probably an obvious counter, but it’s a thought and we should all feel like citizen science can help 😊

[@alwayscurious413]

I definitely want to see this argument countered or supported- it’s very similar to the flywheel effect - the system properties are time dependent depending on when you started the rotation (some magnetic field based inductive effects behave in the same way.). No doubt this mechanism for dark matter has been knocked back but it is quite compelling.

[@silphv]

I mean, with gravitational waves proven, the entire universe rippling and resonating like an ocean, it's not far-fetched, is it? But I definitely don't know enough to guess how much of an effect there could be that's not accounted for by typical simulations. It might not end up accounting for dark matter but it could be part of an explanation, because the motion of dark matter is important too. (Cold dark matter, meaning low velocity, is the preferred hypothesis, since hot dark matter should dissipate structures like galaxies rather than hold it together, but it's far from certain what effects the motion of dark matter has on its perceived gravitational effects.)

[@silphv]

And while I don't know much about ... would wake fall under hydrodynamics? ... knowing a bit about harmonic systems and how powerful resonance can be, I'm pretty curious what kind of gravitational resonance is produced by gravity interacting in a galaxy and how that affects the motion. If gravitational waves weren't even detected 10 years ago, how many simulations have been run with no account for gravitational waves? This is the kind of thing we might see explored more of in the near future because of recent discoveries.

[@yvonnemiezis5199]

Very interesting indeed, great presentation 👍😊

[@guydemullet303]

Dr. Simon Holland has a recent video about “Negative Matter” being anti-gravity. Further that negative matter can be had from the core of the moon, though it exists as solid material in all large celestial objects. Just easier to get at in less dense moons and such.

[@devs.4254]

Dark Star is a great Crosby Stills & Nash song

[@kirk1147]

ANTON! I have a question... You touched on the idea of dark matter black holes which got me thinking. (I hate it when that happens) Is an antimatter black hole possible? Could we detect one? How would we deternine the difference? What would be different about it? Thanks, and keep the great videos coming!

[@stargazer5784]

When you said 'poofy', that made my day. In all seriousness though, good job. Thx.

[@buddypage11]

The key to this is outside of particle physics and is better aligned with the holographic features observed in the functionality of space-time. One of those is the ability of multiple realities to exist in the same space, but at different wave lenghts and frequency bands. We can't easily observe these other realities but gravity has allowed us to discern their presence. Large structures like galaxies, stars, and planets appear to have aspects outside of our space-time reality. Not parallel universes, but adjacent realities in the same universe.

[@loristone7387]

Anton, I'm thinking that dark mater might be wave-form light. This is because when observed, light becomes a particle. Maybe Dark mater is simply un-observable-form light waves. And maybe they're part of what is driving the universal expansion. What do you think? I really, really enjoy your content. Your voice is friendly, and calm, and give off very sweet, friendly vibes. Thanks for sharing your content.

[@danhove]

Thanks. Very informative.

[@htos1av]

Side note: Bring back the Shure mic-BIG difference in tonality and resolution. (I'm listening through a digital eMu system connected a Bang & Olufsen analog audio system).

[@feeseize9569]

I hope your digital connections are gold plated for that peak audio quality. Agree on the mic difference though.

[@WifeWantsAWizard]

(6:30) The very fact that you can see the star means it is not "immortal". The cast-off light is fuel being expelled. That some of that fuel is unique and longer-lasting is not proof of immortality.

[@ГеоргиКолев-ш3я]

How about "Planck black holes" ( 1 Planck mass in an object with 1 Planck length dimensions) It interacts with regular matter and with other Planck black holes/particles only gravitationally. It's the lowest energy valley possible (aka probably the most stable particle)

[@Alondro77]

Dark matter = Junk mail! It's certainly plentiful enough to explain it! ;D

[@MaxBrix]

What am I missing? I thought dark mater was mostly in a halo surrounding the Milky Way in order to explain the velocity curve of stars. The stars in the center of the galaxy have the expected velocities from visible matter. The stars near the edge are moving too fast to be held by visible matter. This is the reason it is assumed that it is not self interacting, it doesn't collapse.

[@maxstirner6143]

Easy, they're using a vague term to describe the unknown, as known matter. They're bad at science.

[@MindForgedManacle]

@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv Except for gravitational evidence, whereas God can't be detected in any way. So your analogy is just a poor attempt at an argument.

[@Hackanhacker]

aisnt that called a ... Theory ? xD

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

There are more. Movement of galaxy cluster, distribution of matter seen in CMB etc. You can watch Angela Collier's "dark matter is not a theory".

[@silphv]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I enjoy seeing how many people keep coming to these comment sections armed with Angela.

[@enderoftime2530]

Wait, so dark matter annihilation would require that dark matter is either its own antiparticle or that it interacts with exceptionally powerful fields and/or photon, right? What other mechanism would allow for such annihilation? Also, wasn’t the premise behind the dark matter star that dark matter provided the gravity well necessary to compress and fuse hydrogen as opposed to need a very dense cloud of gas? I thought that was what was discussed in one of the more recent videos on this topic.

[@kimberlina68]

Anton, can you do video on: electron neutrinos??? Please 🙏😊

[@stevenkarnisky411]

Thank you, Anton. Dark matter is another issue that I hope I will be around to see solved.

[@TheYuccaPlant]

Contagious smile at the end :))

[@3RAN7ON]

If we ever do meet aliens, and can explain to them our understanding of the universe, i.e Dark Matter, they will probably laugh at us 😅

[@maladyofdeath]

What would be the origin of such a particle? If it's completely abundant, outnumbering regular matter, then what causes it and where does it come from? Do we even have a theory to accomodate such a particle?

[@Phoenixoflife56]

My hypothesis is that the particle involved could be a result of the extreme natures of black holes. This could be from Hawking radiation or from quasars. If so I really don’t see how we’d be able to confirm it.

[@dhaktizero4406]

our code is four bases maybe the universe is four based too light matter not-light not-matter anti gets everyone excited about annihilation - get therapy but dynamic tensions of opposites are the warp and woof of the looms making this great 4D tapestry

[@GAMakin]

THE RULE OF FOUR... ? NOW... Imagine a DNA code with SIX Bases. Might give ONE enough mental "muscle" to create a closed loop "universe" as a simple illustration of PRINCIPLE. That an Artifact within this test base MIGHT develop a rudimentary form of Intelligence MIGHT be a curiosity but of limited significance... PARTICULARLY if it CONSTANTLY insists on getting "things" wrong, and making a general (and PERSISTENT) nuisance of itself. 🤩 LOL

[@karendarrenmclaren]

Hello wonderful Anton

[@beerandrockets7526]

Thanks Anton!

[@microchip5673]

What’s outside the entire solar system though? I think that’s some of what we might consider dark matter because there has to be other things going on like an atmosphere outside the bubble for there to even be a bubble.

[@BlueSky16161616]

Maybe we have it wrong about what gives objects mass. Maybe it is the space, the warped space around an object that gives a particle, a planet a star its mass. The interstellar medium around objects gives it its mass. As light and waves traveling thru this medium gives it mass.

[@alexandernorman5337]

The big problem with the idea that dark matter annihilation may delay core compaction during the various stellar fusion cycles and thus significantly prolong a star's life is that we have never found Population III stars. The early universe was more dense than it is today. The dark matter concentration likewise was denser. Thus many of those early stars should have been able to scoop up large amounts of dark matter and greatly prolong their lifespans. But the absence of any Population III stars in our astronomy surveys indicate that they were very short lived.

[@mrpocock]

The Dark matter may have been a lot hotter. It may not have been cool enough to stay put.

[@kreynolds1123]

Normal matter particles can bounce off each other and stick. large groups of normal matter exhibit a pressure temperature and stickiness. This allows asteroids planets and stars to form through the interaction of gravity, electric charge, the pauli exclusion principle, as well as vanderwall forces which relate back t0⁰o electromagnetic forces and virtual particles, to make normal mater condense and "stick". Other than gravity, we know of no other forces that interact with dark mater particles. Dark mater distribution sugest that maybe dark mater particles aren't sticky especially since they don't interact with any other force, that maybe they don't collide and go right through each other without any Interaction than gravity. If so they can not stick and don't have heat-pressure properties. But maybe through gravitational interactions, dark mater particles can give up some of their momentum to normal mater particles that are "sticky". The velocity of the dark mater particles would have to be slow enough that allows them to be trapped to a region gravitationally with other dark mater particles and normal mater. It's hard to see slow enough dark mater particles to be trapped in Stellar sized objects, dark mater particle velocity seems sufficently slow enough for galactic sized objects to accumulate as much dark mater as they do.

[@kreynolds1123]

​@@mrpocockif dark mater particles don't interact with eachother any other way than gravity, then they can't stick, they would pa's right through eachother and only can exchange energy gravitattionally. They certainly do not have pressure, and how would you quantify dark mater heat? Maybe there is an analog that we can (or do), use for particles that simply pass through eachother.

[@tsm688]

by current understanding pop 3 stars were incredibly massive and short lived, with few of the things that prevent the growth of modern stars.

[@alexandernorman5337]

@@mrpocock Temperature is not a good explanation for what we find though - at least not without considerably more analysis. Space was appreciably hotter back then, and more dense. Density should absolutely assist with accumulating dark matter and increasing the longevity of an early Pop III star (if it does/can increase its longevity). Temperature could work against that (even though it did not have such an effect with normal matter to inhibit star formation). And then there is random chance - if indeed dark matter can prolong a star's life by an appreciable degree.) Arguing temperature as a reason for not seeing Pop III stars though doesn't work with current understanding because that is just saying temperature is the larger effect than density. But random chance is always a factor (if we are assuming it's possible). So what we should see is that Population III stars are *extremely rare* (because in a few cases density won out due to chance circumstances) but what we actually see is that no Pop III stars lived long enough to be seen at all. So like I said, the absence of Pop III stars indicates that dark matter likely has no appreciable effect on prolonging the life of a star. Or a lot more has to be done to reconcile the idea that some stars may be unnaturally long lived due to dark matter with the known fate of Pop III stars.

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

I might be misunderstanding, but does this not imply the possibility of us discovering a G class analogous "immortal star" yo which we might migrate when our star theatens to engulf us? Or, since we are waving magic wands, imply we might one day be able to make our own sun immortal via datk matter.

[@robertweekes5783]

I’m always waiting for Anton to say “on the EENside”

[@chrismacinnes3770]

So dark matter if it is self interacting could there be some phasing of matter where it produces non interacting electromagnetic properties with up to 6 or move phase having their own visible universes and only interacting through gravity?

[@larscarter7406]

Wouldn't time dilation near a black hole cause stars to appear to live longer?

[@davidsault9698]

If we were to see objects from the future of this Universe, those objects would necessarily appear smaller and brighter in our smaller version of this Universe as the light emitted in the larger Universe would have to occupy a smaller volume here in our smaller version of the Universe. But the mass would remain the same, making a smaller appearing object appear to be much denser than it actually is in the future.

[@sureenough2817]

7:38 I have a personal theory that stars entering an event horizon of a black hole which we are theoretically contained, would appear to be young new stars forming but are stars crossing the black holes event horizon from an inside perspective.

[@silphv]

We see a lot of very active star clusters but we don't detect the mass of those clusters growing over time. If stars are appearing from somewhere outside the universe, wouldn't we see that?

[@sureenough2817]

@@silphv from outside the universe it looks as if the star compresses and spaghettifies when crossing the event horizon but from the inside, very theoretically, rather than matter being condensed to one point, it appears to compress as time is slowed to a crawl, however time is the only thing that, theoretically, changes upon crossing the event horizon, and our viewpoint is what changes our perception. Since time flows in one direction on either side, from an insiders point of view time remains forward for both perspectives in and outside of the black hole, however they are not the same direction of time rather both perceives their subjective reality as forward, and since physically you can't occupy two places at once the direction of time does not effect cognition. (this may relate to dark matters influence on gravity.) This would also explain why our universe appears to be expanding, I theorize in actuality we are just witnessing our perception of matter crossing the black hole in which our observable is contained, and since crossing the event horizon is a one way trip both perspectives perceive a compression despite what side they are on. This would then theoretically explain such phenomena listed in this video.

[@sureenough2817]

@@silphv to answer your question, the matter doesn't grow since it is simply crossing an event horizon, matter is not lost nor destroyed just transferred by the rules laid out in my other reply. So rather than perceiving matter appearing from no where, in my theory the only thing changed is the direction of time allowing for such anomalies such as stars appearing much younger than they should be are since, the time influencing that matter has changed it's flow in accordance to the energy applied from entering the black hole, so the matter joins the rest of the stuff trapped within the black hole that then is perceived as moving forward in it's young state in accordance to our interior perspective.

[@cassandranoice1563]

My head canon/fan theory is dark matter is gravitational impacts from other universes interacting with ours.

[@vensroofcat6415]

a) there's dark matter web; b) dark matter is in halos around galaxies... Excuse me? Like perfect symmetric rings and that in a web, huh? I think there's something huge missing in our understanding of the early universe. First stars, something. Which could explain old galaxies having those weird gravities on the outskirts.

[@brunom72]

Sending hugs 🤗🤗

[@nickturnock3369]

Dark matter creating energy while losing mass does not imply anihilation, any more than it does in the sun or an internal combustion engine. Rearranging the dark matter is more plausible than anihilation unless there is reason to think that there are significant amounts of anti-dark matter.

[@MireilleLaverty]

I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard Anton say “dark matter” as many times as I heard him in this video. At one point, I was expecting him to brake out into song: “Old black matter has me in its spell / Old black matter that you weave so well…” 😂

[@allentac6222]

Drinking game… take a shot every time Dark Matter is said. 🥴

[@lethargogpeterson4083]

Or the dark matter rap?

[@kingpiggins292]

Dark matter is in my walls

[@RaviSangubotla]

Hi Anton, please take it as suggestion. it would be visually good if you are just explaining concepts, discoveries without any actual visuals. But if you want to present some visuals like whitepapers, JWST images or videos, have your picture/photo/video moved to one side of the of the screen ( left/right/top/bottom ). Reason, while i am trying to follow what you are talking to what I see, actual video is suddenly overlapped by your explaination video. It is visually making me lost.

[@Hackanhacker]

Neutron stars Are my favorite Object, followed by black holes ... They reach to my curiosity so bad ... but the more I learn about Black holes (and Neutron Stars) the more I think they are "simpler" than we think(there explanation/physics isnt out of reach for our understanding) But dark Matter (not dark energy) Is really getting to my curiostity

[@keithprice475]

I think what we are looking at here is what Imre Lakatos long ago called 'degenerating problem shifts'. There seems to me to be something basically wrong with the standard model that is motivating increasingly wild attempts to patch it in various ways that only make the issues worse - our very own modern version of the good old Ptolemaic 'epicycles'! What is needed is a model that does what Copernicus did - reconfigure and unify so as to provide a simplifying picture that accommodates the multiplying anomalies. Where might we get such a picture?

[@keithprice475]

Perhaps hydrinos are worth another look?

[@peterteatree]

Really interesting ❤

[@johnh539]

S stars could just be young "Relatively". When we are looking at the supper massive black holes sphere of gravitational influence ,you must remember we are looking at slow time so from their(S star) perspective they may well be nearly as old as the galaxy but from our much faster time flow perspective we are seeing them earlier in their evolution. As always I don't know if I am right but as always gravity/time differentials are the one explanation not even considered. That may be because they regard the speed of light as being constant , but speed is distance over time and if time is running slow so would a light photon if observed from a much faster zone of time.

[@peterschmidt3551]

My guess is dark matter is gravity that bleeds through to this universe from various parallel universes which have the same things in the same places. They could try simulating that... but it would take exponentially more compute.

[@chugg159]

I'm a believer that Dark Matter is what it says on the tin. It's matter that we can't see for one reason or multiple. I don't think dark matter is going to completely blow our minds when we figure out what it is. For all we know it could be something we already understand but just weren't able to see for one reason or another. If that's the case, I would be more fascinated by why we can't see it.

[@Khannea]

Dark matter is angels who work hard to keep the universe together and thereby fight the forces of Darkness. I however am thoroughly dork matter, and an Immoral Star actively orbiting Uranus.

[@ocerams1826]

i know you aren't convinced of NHI. but one day you'll say 'we have aliens'

[@Odihmantich]

Антон! Я вижу, у тебя стало получше качество видео тебя самого! Было бы круто ещё добавить чуть больше контрастности! Видео на фоне выглядит всё время более контрастно, чем ты сам 😊

[@noelstarchild]

Am not buying into these DM explanations, generally DM has been shown to shepherd matter, but as a self-interacting particle and dark stars? Dubious about that. Evidence of it and I am convinced, but right now? Nah. Thanks Anton, you do a good job of explaining difficult concepts.

[@user-ej7kp7ti2e]

Is dark matter a production of black holes. The poles of a black hole excrete the reduced elements of whatever enters it. Leaving at a greater rate than the speed of light, which then becomes the food of distant future galaxies or passing bodies that consume it or it just passes through. Gravity would play a big part in what would be available.

[@MasterElements]

Has anyone ever looked into the idea that dark matter is the product of a matter/anti-matter reaction? Like how fire leaves behind ashes, dark matter could be the "ashes" of a matter/anti-matter reaction. A state of matter so low in energy that it doesn't interact with anything because the reaction literally sucks out all the energy except for the Higgs-Boson? because it still interacts with gravity.

[@tsm688]

if it has mass, it actually has a hell of a lot of energy. that's einstein.

[@KnightspaceORG]

But... The annihilation does leave things behind, like photons and neutrinos, sometimes even pairs of less massive particles and anti particles. That can't be the source, as those particles would be detected in regions of dark matter effect

[@MasterElements]

@@KnightspaceORG I'm definitely oversimplifying the concept and have nowhere near the knowledge to ask this in the correct way but as a concept could this line of thinking be plausible? That the reaction produces dark matter.

[@KnightspaceORG]

@@MasterElements No, as neutrinos and photons would be detectable with our current technology, as both interact with other matter particles, albeit weakly when we are talking about neutrinos

[@Martiandawn]

If dark matter is real, the existing gravitational and cosmological models cannot possibly be accurate. The foundational assumptions of those models were based on observations of the visible matter in the universe. If there is a vast amount of invisible matter affecting the motions of stars and planets, those foundational assumptions were based on incomplete data. We really have no idea precisely how much influence dark matter has on the observed motions of stars and planets because we have no way to tell where dark matter is via direct observation. We can infer the presence of dark matter based on observed motions that are not accounted for by the visible matter we have observed, but that inference alone is insufficiently precise to serve as the basis for predictive models.

[@vih-qq9pm]

Equating all spacetime "gravitational type" anomalies with only the presence of particle matter is the equivalent of saying "wood floats, so all that floats is made of wood". There is nothing to say that spacetime "gravitational type" anomalies need to involve particles. Lets face it, we have not found a single candidate particle, let alone a universe full...

[@markusbrendon]

Science is like following a very long sci fi series, every time that is something cool to know about

[@SuperChaoticus]

I love when something in the universe doesn’t act as they think, scientists will just give dark matter a new magical power to explain things.

[@TheMrGoncharov]

Anton looked creepy when looking to the sides around minute 5

[@LQhristian]

A 'Dark Matter Dynamo' would explain why our sun produces more energy (in form of Neutrinos) than calculated/expected!

[@NealGutierrez]

I always wondered if dark matter is something manifested from another fundamental force, one we can't detect.

[@Tipsythomas]

So before the cold death of the universe hits, humanity makes a bee line to one of these stars.

[@roybatty2030]

Dark Star - brilliant sci-fi spoof film

[@vileluca]

"Dark matter has become more misunderstood" lol Anton that assumes it's understood in the first place.

[@MuscarV2]

Basic grammar: MORE misunderstood. Just more than it was before. And something doesn't need to be understood first to be misunderstood.

[@vileluca]

Wrong. ​In this instance "more mysterious" is fine and a correct what of saying what Anton is trying to say. "More misunderstood" is implying that Dark Matter is understood, by some people, and that dastardly media or something is giving out false info to the masses, and now new info comes out which has led the public even further astray. @@MuscarV2

[@vonborgah]

Every action must have an opposite reaction. If gravity pulls things together then there needs to be a "push" from something

[@QuantumJJean]

We should be more humble with science. As we don't have a long experience in time, we slowly evolve. But eternal is a word that we don't know about.

[@CC-iq2pe]

I wonder if these stars that are gaining of huge masses of Dark Matter end up redefining the term “Dark Star” imposing the definition of Stars which accumulate so much dark matter that they essentially slow their aging process. This also makes me wonder if this being true essentially makes it possible for the universe which can see to be much older than we have previously calculated?

[@heperstine3259]

Question. could dark mater be mostly in another dimension and we're only getting the effects of the part in our dimension

[@KnightspaceORG]

Only if that "another dimension" had even a hint of evidence

[@glyngreen538]

I’ve been looking around for dark matter since you’ve all been talking about it and I’ve not seen any yet. I’ll keep looking though for the sake of science.

[@tonibat59]

Immortal stars? If my wife hears about this, she is ditching all those expensive rejuvenating creams that 'do nothing' but she keeps using 'just in case' and ordering a couple tons of DM Yuups. We should call it the 'Grace Roman' super-dark anti-aging. As for me, you know what? I'm going back to metaphysics. It was all much simpler and consistent. Hard to understand but, when you get it, you get it.😅

[@philippekunzle8233]

Janus cosmological model is able to recreate stable galaxy. Why is it never mentioned?

[@neilhallberg1784]

Perhaps there's an region near the black hole where there's a lot of dark matter , gas and dust where some stars are formed and flung out like a Catherine wheel , maybe saying black holes makes stars. 😊 ?🤔

[@WhiskerBiscuit1]

I wanna know what that star in the top left is doing at 9:47.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

The movie "Dark Star" is a hoot!

[@laserlight568]

Newtonian gravity dynamics on small scales is unassailable. Two or more independent discrete massive objects interact according to Einstein's formula of spacetime geometry which is equal to mass-energy density. The larger the mass the larger the distortion of space-time and the stronger the force of gravity. MOND MOND is a collective gravitational effect requiring large scale "symmetrically distributed" gravitational fields that are additive across the radial diameter of a galactic disk plane and also between clustered galaxies in close proximity. In a disk shaped galaxy, containing billions of stars, the independent stellar gravitational fields "overlap" with other stars (and gas) that are in close gravitational proximity and become gravitationally locked relative to each other. The angular momentum of the gravitationally bound stars in the disk insure that they maintain their orbital path around the galactic center as the galaxy rotates. The collective gravitational field of the stars making up the disk maintain their placement, which effectively gravitationally locks them in place within the disk as they rotate around the galactic center. Individual stars in close proximity, that orbit each other, still maintain their overall orbital positions relative to the rotation of the disk. In effect, the total gravitational field of the galaxy is additive radially across the diameter of the galaxy disk, similar to stacking magnets or batteries which increases the total energy of the stack. The energy (gravitational field) measured radially from the center of the galaxy increases across the galactic plane and extends far beyond the disk of the galaxy. The more stars that are in the galaxy the larger the total galactic gravitational field it exerts.

[@DavidWilliams-yh6pq]

What is the speed limit of dark matter?