The Real Crisis in Cosmology - Dark Matter Doesn’t Exist

[@AboveBeyondVapor]

My prediction is that centuries from now historians will label the last 50 years as The Great Dark Age in theoretical physics.

[@u.p.woodtick3296]

No doubt

[@problematic7993]

No, people are only getting stupider with time. We're only starting.

[@tristankason1925]

instablaster

[@DNOTE831]

I predict that centuries from we'll have new and exciting theories on dark matter

[@problematic7993]

@@DNOTE831 dark matter is nonsense

[@justinpridham7919]

I can only hope your voice is loud and clear cutting through the deafening roar of billion$ burning out of control. Keep saying it sir, many of us are listening!

[@mcburcke]

You are absolutely correct, sir. Keep proclaiming the scientific facts! It is long past time we start thinking outside the funded establishment lockbox.

[@ken0272]

Go back and take a look at the comments when "Dark Matter" was proposed, now THAT was thinking outside the box

[@onehitpick9758]

@Mike Doonsebury It only happens, to any significance, at extremely large scales, so we can never empirically measure it with a controlled experiment. We are building more and more theory, with more and more extraordinary, wild Band-Aids from stuff we are looking at through, for the most part, a pin-hole (in multiple dimensions x,y,z, and t). We should be focusing on opening the aperture, and not constraining experiments and observations to conform to some bizarre expectations.

[@jeremyjames1659]

If you can't measure it with a controlled experiment, which is what real science is supposed to be about, how do you know it exists? You don't

[@numbynumb]

It's incredibly dishonest to refer to it as "matter" at all. It's a calculated move to create the impression that they've discovered a special new kind of matter, when the very opposite is the case. The concept of Dark Matter epitomizes the pathetic state of theoretical physics today.

[@KibyNykraft]

A good start for skeptics is to read Sabine Hossenfelder's book Lost in math. There are also a couple of others even more worth reading that unfortunately Google censors automatically now by algorithms every time mentioned in KZbin comments. Dark matter may absolutely exist but the now popular magazine explanation of it is going even far beyond the worst confusions found in theology and postmodernity literature.

[@KibyNykraft]

Quoted from (copy and paste the text under ,and search for it on nongoogle search engines) : "One of the greatest mysteries of cosmology theory is the mystery of the missing mass. According to most computer models, using any number of standard-model theories based on the big bang or similar generators, there appears to be too little mass in the universe to explain current motions, densities, and so on. This is why dark matter was invented: to explain the mass deficit. Over the past few decades, any number of models with varying amounts of cold dark matter or warm dark matter or lukewarm dark matter have been presented, but all of them have problems. I will not gloss these problems, since I believe they are all fake problems, based on bad assumptions and postulates. Meaning, the lost mass is not lost out there somewhere in the dark corners of space. It is lost in the dark corners of bad or misunderstood equations. As tenuous and changeable a solution as dark matter has proved itself to be, it is by far the least esoteric of the current solutions to mass deficit. Hundreds of avant garde solutions have also been offered, some by big names in theoretical physics. I will also ignore these solutions, since they are strictly desperate. Some of them are frankly ludicrous, and merit no reply. Suffice it to say, here, that even the most entrenched standard model folks believe this is a problem not yet solved. Almost no one believes the answer is in hand. Many if not most would admit that the mountain of conflicting theory has reached the point of being a big unsortable mess. Most proposed solutions have little to say for themselves, to differentiate them from any other solutions, and the greater part have the appearance of groping. Even the best solution, dark matter, is so fluid and capricious, it hasn't been able to finally convince anyone."

[@brendawilliams8062]

Well, if the internet was invented in the Statue of Liberty then they would stick an antenna on it and no one would ever close up shop.

[@Nat-oj2uc]

Agreed and they now backtracking by saying it's just placeholder for some phenomena. Nah bs billions of dollars been funneled in search for real matter

[@Chris.Davies]

DM is like the invisible pink unicorn in my garage: I can tell you it's there all day, and you can look as long as you like, but you won't see it, because it is invisible, and pink!

[@Evghenios79]

you also have a pink unicorn?!?!??! now at least I know where mine drifts off to, every morning!

[@saltycreole2673]

I'm still reminded of the Electric Universe Theory that gained a little traction in 2000-2015. I wish you good fortune in your endeavours.

[@TropicalCoder]

I was never comfortable with the hypotheses of Dark Matter. I always thought it was just as likely that fairies are responsible for the observed phenomenon that Dark Matter was supposed to explain.

[@onehitpick9758]

It wasn't that long ago that angels were thought to push the planets in their orbits.

[@wesleycolemanmusic]

@@onehitpick9758 By who?

[@ゲンソウ]

By me, I actually still believe that. The angel pushing Earth is named Mr. Kibbles, and the earth is flat so its easier for him to push

[@rickb06]

@@ゲンソウ honestly, that explanation makes quite a bit more sense than the laughable joke that is touted as the accepted model of the universe, by a fleet of yes men, and of course, members of the modern scientific priesthood.

[@saltycreole2673]

I gave grudging credence to the Electric Universe Theory. Alas, it petered out into obscurity. I'll not be fooled again. I'm a skeptical man now, even for Dark Matter. We burned people at the stake 600 years ago for claiming the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe so I wish this gentleman's latest rebuke of current Cosmological "thinking" much success.

[@johfc]

Eric, you describe this so eloquently and succinctly. So very refreshing.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

WHY THE OVERALL SHAPE AND BASICALLY CONSTANT FORM OF WHAT IS THE MOON GENERALLY MANIFEST AS SUCH PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL FACT THAT E=MC2 IS (AND MUST BE) F=MA: Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical EXPERIENCE. Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!!! Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. SO, the Earth is fully time dilated ON BALANCE. What is the Earth, what is the Sun, and what is the Moon are governed by E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE in accordance with the necessary condition that this does then involve what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. What is the Moon is moving AND not moving (IN BALANCE) in relation to both the Sun AND the Earth, as invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental and UNIVERSAL EQUILIBRIUM and balance explains why E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON then NECESSARILY matches it's revolution; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE MOON is thus a frozen/constant or "dead"/unchanging form in perpetual motion as necessitated by the Earth/Sun BALANCE that fundamentally governs and generally shapes it IN ACCORDANCE WITH the UNIVERSAL fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT. I have mathematically explained or proven why there is NO RESISTANCE regarding WHAT IS THE MOON in BALANCED RELATION to the Sun AND the Earth, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; as this CLEARLY then explains the perpetual motion of WHAT IS THE MOON. Alas, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. I have explained why objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Beautiful. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE EARTH/ground is E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, as this CLEARLY then also explains why we do not feel the rotation of WHAT IS THE EARTH. Alas, what is THE MOON is a linked AND BALANCED opposite in relation to the Earth AND what is the Sun; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the Moon remains the same (or basically constant) insofar as it's rotation necessarily matches it's revolution. Indeed, the SPACE that the Moon occupies is understood as being FULLY formed/manifest. The motion of the Moon (thus defined) FIXES, defines, or encompasses RELATIONAL motion. The relationally VARIABLE EXPERIENCE of what is THE EARTH/ground is thus directly comparable to what is then understood as the INVARIANT form of what is the Moon (ON BALANCE), AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio

[@cosmichappening1712]

The search for "Dark matter", is like the search for El Dorado.

[@Grandhighdruid]

The 'dark matter' has always made me think of the old idea of 'the ether'.

[@BenHameen33]

My thoughts exactly. Scientists did measurements that don't work with their current theories... so they invent a substance called 'Dark Matter' that fills in whatever contradictions that pop up. Might as well call it Ether and say the old scientists were right

[@BrockNelson]

I’m a believer in the ether.

[@bubblegumgun3292]

@@BrockNelson it is, you see eric is an atheists and hes gotta push to cover up that fact. ether and the big bang , both of these things eric is trying to "debunk" because both of these things point at god. ethereal being responsible for the beginning, yeah that would be a God.

[@robheusd]

Well the 'dark matter' hypothesis (albeit one without non-standard model particles) is scientific history had both its sucesses and failures, since we can attribute the discovery of both neptune and pluto to the hypothesis that some unseen planet must be out there beyond the known planets to explain some anomalies in how the other planets behaved, and this was in both cases a succes.. It failed however for the discovery of Vulcan to explain the perihelium shift of the orbit of Mercury, so we never found Vulcan. Only a shift to a new physics theory - General Relativity - could explain the anomalous behaviour of Mercury and many other phenomena. But we do not have any certainty that gravity behaves the way we think it does at large and ultra large scales, so Dark Matter and Dark energy, as provisional theories to fill in the gaps, might give way for a new theory of gravity, which gets rid of the need for dark matter and dark energy. One provisdional alternative gravitational theory is already out there, called MOND. It uses a slghtly modified version of newtonian dynamics to explain the anomalous flattening of the curve of distance vs orbital velocities of stars in galaxies, with just one free parameter. However MOND is not an alternative gravity explenation since it can not explain all the anomalous gravitational effects (besides the flat rotation speed vs distance curves also the gravitational lensing effect) with the same parameter in the theory, so it does not fit all the gaps in the gravitational theory.

[@lahaina4791]

​​@@BrockNelson I feel the ether may be the dynamic and cyclic field which drags photons away in all directions providing the speed of light. Basically the treadmill of space.

[@rogerscottcathey]

You are a breath of fresh air. You and Robitaille.

[@williamlawson633]

Dark Matter is to the 21st century as The Ether was to the 19th.

[@rogerscottcathey]

@@williamlawson633 : That thought crossed my mind first learning of it. Weakly interacting matter, akin to Dirac's ocean of neutrinos. Maybe accounting for red shift in some concepts. I don't know of course. I liked Spalding's theory of an aqueous, gaseous primary, vibrating, originating power, wherein all particles are suspended in equilibrium only requiring separation of specific fields to enable selectivity or attraction to bring about massive elementary particles and substances. In the infinity of this equilibrated or "universal" as he called it, the selectivity has to attributed to life in it. I guess he was getting at prana, which is alive if not particularly intellectual. Impulsive but not planning. Such would be left for more complex conglomerations. This stuff was the origin of ether, a slightly grosser stuff, but not primal.

[@giovanniguarino9152]

Finally a serious criticism to the fairtale world of the Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy. My congratulation for the simple and definitive explanation.

[@Dutch2go]

Great video series. Thanks for making this so rational and easy to understand. Thank goodness for common sense.

[@EthanA1122]

just shared it with my brother who read a FORBES article. thanks for being concise and honest!

[@Christiangjf]

This reminds me of the discrepancies in 19th century observations of the motion of Venus. Solution? Oh it must be a planet we've never detected that orbits in between the sun and Venus.

[@robheusd]

Correct. The Vulcan hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. But it was scientifically justiified to pose it and to explore it, as previously we did find Neptune and Pluto on that same hypothesis.

[@adeeperbluegreen]

"Enlightening" as always.

[@onehitpick9758]

You are telling me what I already know. I consider it amazing that someone else can see.

[@going_my_own_way]

Today's astronomy has become a fantasy movie like interstellar which feels good to watch but is not how real world worka

[@ThErElOaDeR99]

At the end of the movie the planet is kinda halo shaped... Maybe they learned how to live in dark matter LOL

[@going_my_own_way]

@@ThErElOaDeR99 it is a shame that nobel prize is being given for black holes.. Tells you a lot about current state of the world

[@AnoNymous-js7qy]

Omg if you tell them WIMPS must rarely interact, they ad-hoc will invent NIWPS = "Not interacting weird particles" and put them into a theory that makes detecting impossible at all to not have always these annoying real physicists challenging them.

[@nightwaves3203]

I've got plenty of dark energy powering my computer and lights. Funny there's no summations of the streams out of some black holes and the effects on any galaxies the rays are headed towards. Just like one big vacuum tube getting loaded up on the grid and plate while the anode powers up. Hope the warm up didn't damage anything :)

[@buddy.boyo88]

the video begins with a dark window and ends with a morning sun, electromagnetism wins in the end

[@HustlinHugh]

Well Said my good man!

[@humanitech]

I am really enjoying your presentations, scientific work and observations. Thanks and hopefully the science community will eventually come round (or back) to real observable science rather than remain stuck in defending models with no evidence.

[@robbybabyrob]

Eye opening and very logical

[@fredericmalmartel1647]

Very interesting, as true as it is simple to understand. Dark matter is just something like Vulcan planet : an hypothetic object you must let down when finally, you never find it because... it doesn't exist.

[@jeffreygrove8921]

Excellent presentation. Thanks!

[@Paladin1873]

Is dark matter the new aether (ether)?

[@taintman2114]

no lol, actually aether will have significance again as aether is the small particle matter within the field of a given object. aether, or matter in space is actually the 'extra matter' that the people behind dark matter have been trying to explain. tesla and steinmetz were a lot closer to the truth than Einstein and edison.

[@illogicmath]

A quite compelling argument against DM

[@norenemies]

Dr. Lerner thanks for your great videos. Why do scientist claim dark matter exists from the X-ray emissions of collided galaxies (e.g. Bullet Cluster) and how would you explain this phenomenon? Might it be a residual effect of known 'normal' baryonic matter? Thanks in adv.

[@doughiggins770]

I like this guy....snaps to dynamic viscosity!

[@CultureTripGuide-HilmarHWerner]

the mechanism that leads to the formation of a (galactical) disc of baryonic matter (vs spherical dark matter haloes) remains unclear: why a disc and not an ever denser ball like with the formation of stars and planets? (the same goes for the formation of 'your' plasma "pan-cakes".) such geometric formation processes seem crucial!

[@alastorgdl]

You speak like the formation of stars and planets were seen and well known Scientism adepts need delusion more than oxygen

[@look4truth480]

I would like to see a liquid compass engineered that had particles instead of needles. We know the needles point north and south. What if in the liquid we could see what pattern the particles make?

[@agil2277]

excellent. thanks

[@IkeReviews]

You should debunk the heat death theory that the universe Theory it makes just as much sense as the big bang.

[@TheFXofNewton]

Great stuff. You are a great teacher and scientist. Kudos! Subbed

[@Norwegian_username]

I’m been thinking about this for awhile and it’s above the red shift and the acceleration of the universe.I think that the Doppler effect can’t be used in cosmology, The reason is because I think that the lights leaving a star bending around all the stars that’s in its way or near it, and then leaving the gravitational well that it’s navigating through called a galaxy, And then passing X amount of other galaxies pulling on at different directions would add up to a red shift the light source. Could that be alternative exclamation for the red shift?

[@johnwesley256]

My 2 theories that an area of space even though has no matter can be stretched either through gravitational waves pulling on it or my other theory is that it's being expanded due to differences in time between space (even if it has no matter) due to gravity on the infinite scale (real number line). Both of my theories would be destroyed if expansion isn't happening at an accelerated rate near massive black holes or galaxies with huge masses. Also I think we would've found the energy or at least the existence of it when we built instruments that measure gravitational waves that detect on a scale of a fraction of an atom by using fluctuations in lasers.

[@nikjs]

When you can't explain why the theories you've swore upon are suddenly failing to match reality and the numbers just don't add up... Presto! Dark Matter!

[@makeaguitarnoise]

Wasn't Halton Arp sceptical about the big bang theory?

[@orsozapata]

Hello professor, actually WIMPS are just one of the possible candidates for Dark Matter. Another one, previously rejected but recently resumed, is primordial black holes. Great job anyway, love the citation of Kroupa's work.

[@DL-pj3fz]

Wimps are hypotesized to explain the voids

[@sandrabailey3966]

News flash.. NASA reports that there Is No Dark Matter or Dark Energy .. Get back to doing Physics now. Oh. The Universe is At Least 26.7 billion years old.. and probably many Trillions of years old.. and Black Holes are as real as Dark Matter: Not. So that 'loop hole' around doing Real Science just got dropped from a great height. Back to DATA BASED SCIENCE or go find another line of work.

[@chrisoakey9841]

if light slows down over millions / billions of years, then red shift can be explained without the need for an expanding universe. then you dont need 95% of the stuff not being seen. and you also dont need "space" itself to be expanding or contracting. which is handy when we cant really explain what space is. light being a fixed speed doesn't make sense to any other thing we see or interact with. light slowing also explains the hubble affect in relation to us, not because we affect the universe, but the further away the light source is, the more time it has had to slow down.

[@andersbergstedt7259]

Would the viscosity problem of dark matter have any influence on planetary orbits? given that there is any dark matter in the solar system of cause.

[@ThErElOaDeR99]

Probably but he just used the easiest example as the more large scale u go the more obvious disparities can be seen.

[@TheGordo1996]

I agree, there are much better theories than Dark Matter worth pursuing. The idea that gravity is a polarized force from the center of mass outward gives it the property of being both attractive and repulsive. When a small mass, like a meteorite come close enough to the Earth for example, most of its mass is synchronized with the polarity of the ground below and it becomes completely attractive. The moon, however, does not orbit the Earth just because it has just the perfect amount of angular momentum. It does so because it is large enough to maintain its own polarity, so half of the Moons mass is being attracted to half of the Earths mass (the half facing away) because their polarities are synced in the same direction, while the other half of the Moons mass is of opposite polarity and therefore repulsed. The general tendency is for planets to maintain a safe distance. This repulsive force may not prevent two large objects from colliding if they have enough momentum.

[@4203105]

Man that's a lot of bollocks. The moon is moving away from the earth and will leave it eventually, because it doesn't have perfect momentum, it has too much. And planets are far away from each other because otherwise they collide and form a new planet. See early earth and the origin of the moon.

[@TheGordo1996]

@@4203105 The reason you're so confused is that you buy into the mainstream gravitational accretion model to form stars, planets, and moons while ignoring the abundance of charged plasma, electromagnetic forces.

[@BartDooper]

I agree with you that there are better theories. How about the theorem that an electron is a particle ? The electron particle is never seen and if you accelerate them from 0 to light speed in 0 time you'll not get a reaction force from the inertia of a particle. I suppose that was the common reason why Nicola Tesla could not agree with Einsteins fuzzy haired crackpot theories. So maybe first proof that an electron is a particle and if yes, then look for existence of dark matter..

[@TheGordo1996]

@@BartDooper Yes, I believe that the electron is a particle, not a wave. From what I understand of the experts, electrons and protons are particles or objects made up of smaller orbital structures. It is the result of the spin motion of the particles on the surrounding Aether which gives matter its mass. The use of the term Dark Matter instead of Dark Mass implies that there is something mysterious which cannot be seen or measured which has all the properties of matter (Energy, mass, and the speed of light). There is no such thing as spacetime, but rather a polarizable medium, the Aether existing in all space, including a vacuum and within matter itself, ie. between protons and electrons. This is why light energy can propagate through space as well as solid, clear glass or plastic. Gravity propagates through Aether also, but not as a wave. When they say Dark Matter, they are really searching for an alternate source of gravity in the erroneous way they have defined it.

[@shawns0762]

A few years ago I came to a realization about dark matter, I made a youtube video "new theory on dark matter and black holes". In high mass galaxies such as our own the core is spinning at or near the speed of light relative to the bands, according to relativity that mass is dilated throughout spacetime so the mass at the center of the milky way is all around us. If this is true than low mass galaxies will show no signs of dark matter and that has been confirmed. This is the explanation for the rotation rates of stars in galaxies no question about it.

[@iljastalberg5610]

If Dark matter so dens and have so much gravity how come it dose Not bend light ? even if We cant see it we can see effects of it no?

[@arnaudmarten5415]

Dynamic viscosity problem would be a very different story if we considered this "dark matter" to be not positive in mass but NEGATIVE MASS. Negative mass antimatter would repell positive mass matter. Negative mass photons would be unobservable. Thus why "dark". And, by being repelling, only interacting gravitationnaly. Of course this mean expanding relativity to a bimetric system of equations : these two very different type of objects would define different space time geodesicals... What do you think of that M.Lerner ? It would also explain why cluster are forming, why rotational velocity of galaxies are so high on the the edge without ejecting stars and why satellite galaxies are on disks. At least it seems that this idea is predicting a lot of interresting things as well on large scale universe and on the reason of expansion : no need for dark energy anymore either.

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

This is what we get when we create a system in which people's lives depend upon their defending their own personal fiefdom (their theory). They just can't say that they are wrong and still be justified as an expense. Capitalism is holding back our species...

[@icarus3335]

Finally! Tsk Tsk we could've use the money on what really is possible or existing or to rebuilding Mother Nature, instead of pushing things that much. Thank you Doc!

[@godloves9163]

Indeed, God isn’t pleased.

[@ulyssesdecastro2261]

Perfect explanation.

[@aneikei]

If dynamic viscosity were real then wouldn't the bullet cluster event not has occurred? Wouldn't the normal matter have prevented the dark matter of the event from passing through the collision?

[@georgeprokopenko3044]

good

[@arthurrobey7177]

Dark matter is titrated into the model in exactly the correct amounts to save it. This is not physics. I would that I could titrate a million dollars into my bank account to match the lifestyle to which I wish to become accustomed.

[@launificaciondelas4fuerzas318]

You are right see my two videos where I show that dark matter does not exist The first is in Spanish but I am going to upload one in English, in which I deduce the law of universal gravitation that if it complies with the virial theorem, Newton's law is a particular case, in the second video I show where the curves are theoretically obtained of rotation that Vera Rubin obtained, this one is in English. The problem is that they do not properly use the formulas of gravitation. I also uploaded a video where I show that the universe is not expanding, also in English and soon I will upload videos where I solve Einstein's field equations without using tensor analysis and what will surprise you the most is when I upload the video where I demonstrate in a very simply that what they call quantum mechanics is relativity for example black body radiation is a relativistic effect

[@ronaldsmith4153]

How did scientists believe in something you cannot see and so far, have never detected? We observe an effect that we cannot explain and invent something that we cannot see?

[@prowolf633]

I am happy I found this video, dark matter isn’t real at all, I feel it’s just something scientists made up because they don’t to except that the universe (and probably multiverse) is infinite

[@warren88olen37]

Multiverse, another made up concept.

[@jessestrehlow1979]

I love this guy. What is dark matter?

[@daemonnice]

"All powered by fusion reactions in stars." And immediately his eyes flutter suggesting, perhaps, a nervous twitch or some kind of cognitive dissonance. What is gravitation? As far as I am concerned, Einstein's GR is easily refutable with clear logical thinking. Space and time are concepts and as such, do not have physical properties and do not form an invisible four dimensional matrix which warps due to mass, which, just like DM is not directly observable. From another perspective, Einstein was profoundly ignorant regarding what populates space and his assumptions regarding the vacuum of space were totally wrong. It is easy to see how Einstein, limited as he was to visible light observations would assume the ponderable bodies were isolated in space and he would die before the discovery of the Heliocentric Current Sheet, which connects all the planets to the sun and is likely an integral component defining a planet's orbit. As far as I am concerned, gravity is a conceptual force of attraction. All other forces in the universe attract and repulse, why not gravity? Big G, the gravitational constant is evidence that gravity is an unknown mechanism, still, all these years, nay centuries after Newton. What is mass? M=e/C^2 Mass equals energy. What is the fundamental form of energy in the solar system? Q+ & Q- electric charge, all other forms of energy stem from these two, which also happen to be the basis of the atom with the Q+ proton and Q- electron. Gravity is something like 36 or 39 magnitudes weaker than the electric force. If gravity is ignorable at the quantum scale, it is also ignorable at the cosmological scale. Gravity is not a real force, it is an epiphenomenon of electromagnetic structures in a plasma.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

lol, you're gonna have to provide a fair bit of math to back up those statements

[@daemonnice]

​@@PádraigJMCarey Why? "Math is not physics, physics is not math." ~ Richard Feynman Math only proves a model's usability, not its veracity. I am a natural philosopher, not a mathematician, as it is, I am slowly working on a mathematical model. Operative word being slow. Let me ask you, if Einstein's GR is refutable as I have done, then what is gravity? Or have you taken that leap of faith and cannot conceive outside that belief? Space is a concept denoting a distance or area between two or more objects. Time is change, mechanical time of a clock is a mathematical abstraction which is a useful measuring tool. Timelines are a delusion of memory. Neither space nor time has physical properties. It is assumed. Like much of cosmology.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

@@daemonnice but to refute Einstein's theories which are based in math, then you would have to explain your counter argument using math. "As far as I am concerned, Einstein's GR is easily refutable with clear logical thinking". It might be clear to you, but to make a contrary you have to provide more than just an idea - what formulas that Einstein has proposed are incorrect?

[@daemonnice]

@@PádraigJMCarey "but to refute Einstein's theories which are based in math, then you would have to explain your counter argument using math." As I am often prone to saying, the mathematics of any model only proves the model's usability, not its veracity. I disagree with your statement, Einstein's theories were based on a thought experiment and then expressed mathematically. Math is a language as well as a measuring tool. But more importantly, if you cannot explain your math in a plain common tongue, is it good math? Einstein in creating his hypothesis had a foundation of incorrect assumptions, such as, space being an absolute vacuum impassable to electric currents, and, space is devoid of all matter but the ponderable bodies which he believed were isolated islands in space. He was also profoundly ignorant of the Heliocentric Current Sheet,aka, the solar wind, the largest structure in the solar system electromagnetically interconnecting all the planets and the sun. The existence of plasma in space and all the electromagnetic structures and birkeland currents, etc. In other words, space is the total opposite to what Einstein believed when he derived his model, and I am of the firm belief that if he were aware of all this going on in space he would not have imbued physical properties into two concepts as he did. Sadly, Einstein died prior to much of the electromagnetic discoveries of our solar system. " what formulas that Einstein has proposed are incorrect?" Its not his formulas that are necessarily wrong, its his assumption that space and time form a four dimensional matrix affected by baryonic matter that is impossible to observe directly. That there requires a huge leap of faith, that I am unwilling to take regardless of any math. And he made this assumption from a place of profound ignorance and incorrect assumptions giving me more cause to doubt it as a mechanism. What you and many people today do not comprehend is that math is not the be all and end all. Math is only a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or bad. Mathematical models are an ABSTRACTION and should not be confused with reality until it has undergone rigorous testing where the purpose is to try to make it fail. If it fails the test to fail, it passes as a model. GR has never undergone such testing, in fact quite the opposite. Every acclaimed proof from Eddington to the Einstein Cross rests on assumptions and has alternative explanations. You cannot prove a model, you can only fail to disprove a model. As for Einstein's mathematics, the use of MInkowski space time makes it an excellent metric for plotting or dealing with cosmological distances, so there is some validity to the mathematics. Where there isn't validity is with his original assumptions that gravity is the product of an invisible non-baryonic four dimensional fabric produced through the marriage of two concepts with two entirely different measuring units warped by "brutish matter", to use a Newton reference. There are fields that populate space and they are electromagnetic and these field are known to warp. I apologize for my verbosity, but, this is not a light topic and I do not treat it lightly. You asked some genuine questions, so I have tried to respond just as genuinely.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

Daemon Nice ok mate, you’re right and Einstein is wrong - now I get it ;)

[@tinypanther27]

Dark matter does not require a fluid to exist in which large structures would experience acceleration due to viscosity. The argument about a trail of dark matter on one side of large moving structures could also be applied to baryonic matter to prove stars dont exist

[@generaljoust829]

Where’s your sweater?

[@gooberclown]

Let's turn on our dark flashlights, with dark light, to look for dark matter! 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

Can't these dark matter theorists realize how ridiculous they sound. It exists and it is matter, but has no qualities of matter and acts completely opposite of matter, But it exists because it makes our other wrong theory work out (except it doesn't even do that). Wacky.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

This time problem is a crisis in all fields

[@anthonyiodice]

Is anything in the universe truly invisible?

[@warren88olen37]

wind?

[@drserr6581]

John Cena

[@martinevans1427]

Could we ever look forward to a serious debate between supporters and deniers of the B.B?

[@richgran]

So I watched all 4 of these episodes and Mr. Lerner also has episodes 5 and 6. My comment and then question: Mr. Learner provides scientific based evidence that the big Bang did not happen. In his argument, he provides evidence that the universe is perhaps much older than the Big Bang theory predicts. What scientific based evidence supports creation and the age of Earth mentioned in The Bible?

[@doughiggins770]

Hmmmm elves and fairies...magical stuff

[@clivekennedy6616]

bit of cliffhanger there

[@stoppernz229]

what I dont get is why Dark matter can exert gravity but don't collapse together and form black holes and end up at the center of planets and stars...how can they exert gravity but at the same time not be affected by gravity? If they are affected by gravity then they shoudn't be in a sphere, and if theyre not affected by gravity they also should not be in a sphere

[@warren88olen37]

My theory is the Universe is a big place and we dont know a fraction of how it works yet.

[@makeaguitarnoise]

Thank God for common sense

[@forrisvourvopoulos3252]

Sooo, the Little Black Matter man does Not exist. Thank you. Is beyond the scope of the ridiculous issue that "some" try to prove it! Spending millions upon billions while hunger, war, 3nergy deficiencies, social isolation, social singularity, political and religious conflicts, is like advising their horoscopes yet talking about BM. Thank you sir! Your ideas are respected and well presented in many mystical and occult aspects. AND, is so True. I am fun of study of the Plasma Creation and processies that exists and 3xpends by definition and d3gree beyond the scope of this Duality well served as a BB! As I'm coming from the above mentioned, Universe....our universe is motion, colour, and sound, the electricity and magnetism (as wisely have said and proved) are par excellence teachings So, yes without the ones mentioned there's no universe! Ain't getting any simpler. Edit: I love your sweater😊 and, if I'm corect on the fact of not trying to laugh😂😂 while explaining about the 'the little man'!

[@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi]

Might this help? Time expansion? As universe expands, does history do also, & everything change beneath (& including) it's (& our) nose, for truth it moves faster than light? Is what you'd like to call 'dark matter' truth? (Truth is fairy dust btw lol😉). What would you say if I told you that any missing link will never be found in ancient soils, but rather at the ends of times? Being we're most telepathic with ourselves, may we as a collective feel our future in our bones, & when we spontaneously regenerate back ..to the world prepared for us rather. How many lives have you lived changing beneath your noses, & how many times will we go around & around & around. This is life forever. Once upon a 7th day Neanderthals were here to stay & at the end some of those with heads in hands asking "what should I've known" & "where do I go" , arrived back as man to the dawn of the day spontaneously generated ..rather they😁✨ You can observe dark matter/truth by reality ebbing & flowing twixt hours or even years of your life. Between when bad things happen, & all those days/years earlier you since recall a warning. Practice to be honest, & come time travel in the 1st. Dark matter doesn't collide as truth is telepathic. You say dark matter surrounds, but could you imagine if at the same time it manifested what it was surrounding? Could what it surrounds, & then doesn't surround not ever have existed at all thus? Oh, also, reality may find elbowroom to grow in what I call "the ticks tween time" ebbing & flowing twixt perfection & imperfection of anything perfect in its perfection. Seeing time as only linear perhaps we only see perfection & imperfection at once & as conjoined. Stephen Hawking says "a law of nature is that nothing is imperfect. Without imperfection neither you or I would exist.". I think he calls it a Law because he doesn't like it either, &, if it weren't creation & evolution being 2 different things walking hand in hand would it be neither you or I would exist? Even if we expand into oblivion, we undulate forever & evers. ✨I also write about a reaping via ripple effect. "resist the devil & he will flee from you" and all that. Come find us. I collect minds. Krystel Spicer Mind Ark All my work is free.

[@IlyaRabinovich]

Nik Gorkavy is talking about it for a long time. He has created a theory where anti-gravity force, created on black holes merge, is really one of the main actors for the Universe-level objects.

[@mhorram]

Regarding the adage "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence", that statement is wrong and is much abused by those who don't understand logic. The proper adage is "absence of evidence is NOT PROOF of absence." There is a big difference between these two adages. If you don't find something (little green men) that is pretty good evidence (but not proof) that these guys do NOT exist. In other words, absence is a necessary condition for something to not exist but it is NOT a sufficient condition to prove it does not exist.

[@warren88olen37]

It doesn't prove it does exist either.

[@mhorram]

@@warren88olen37 I agree it is not proof. I actually stated that. As I said, it is a necessary condition but it is not a proof. That is the way logic works. Most people confuse the words proof and evidence and use them interchangeably which they should not. For example, the America MSM claimed there was no evidence of election fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. What they should have said was there was not proof. Why? Because the evidence of serious anomalies in the count and how the ballots were handled were OVERWHELMING; but such evidence without further investigation (to find out if these pieces of evidence had a material effect on the outcome) could not prove that there was election fraud (not just voter fraud). A forensic audit however could take the evidence just mentioned, investigate it and ultimately show that the evidence WAS correct and was NOW sufficient to show that the vote counts were the result of election fraud. In other words, all the necessary conditions for proof had been met. Finally, proof of something not existing is really difficult whereas proof that something does exist is much easier (if you find it see it and handle it then it exits). There can be arguments that the Abominable Snowman doesn't exit but proving that it doesn't exist is another matter. Most of us would agree that the absence of an Abominable Snowman body (there should be thousands of bodies & skeletons in the Himalayas, if they exist, so far there are none [and we have been looking!]). That absence is telling and is as close to a proof as we can get [but technically it is not a proof.] All of the above is more or less in agreement with my original comment.

[@johnunvaxxed1918]

Earth is 4.5 bill. years old, our sun is a third generation star .... wow, how quickly our galaxy has formed after the Big Bang

[@onehitpick9758]

Yeah, this is one of the problems out of all the other major problems of big bang theory. Why was the earth created roughly at the same time as the entire universe? It's more than ridiculous. Folk with half a brain will see this immediately.

[@4203105]

@@onehitpick9758 Um according to the big bang theory model of the universe: Age of the universe: 13.8 billion years Age of earth: 4.6 billion years Not sure where you got the universe and the earth being the same age from.

[@onehitpick9758]

@Mike Doonsebury To any rational scientist, the reliance on CMB is an immediate disproof, because it is now known that each pixel of a CMB measurement has at least 200000 galaxies, each with billions of stars and plenty of heated dust) that could never be cancelled to see the background. Also, even if there were no other galaxies in the universe, claiming to be able to cancel the Milky Way out of the background is beyond shameful, if you understand dynamic range and signal processing

[@onehitpick9758]

@@4203105 That's on the same order of magnitude. The earth is many orders of magnitude younger than the entire cosmos.

[@4203105]

@@onehitpick9758 so basically you were completely wrong and now you won't admit it. Gotcha.

[@Laviolette101]

Making a guesstimate about how much compressed matter and energy it takes to create a black hole equivalency the scale of our calculated universe would likely crunch everything down to its smallest element. It would likely a bipolar energy of some sort combined and compressed for maximum efficiency. The axial rotation of the universe's smallest stuff might compress until one end of it finds equilibrium by going back in time. It jumps forward to the point of the explosion creating a myriad of energy forms including light when the moment of creation occurs and the missing stuff is a time particle creating our spacetime. Light shows up later as a particle continuously looping in time. My pills are wearing off again. later.

[@mrcelada]

Even if normal matter can not collide with dark matter, the so called "dynamic viscosity" must also create a disk in dark matter, aligned with the visible mass disk, and not an spherical halo. This is due to exchange un momentum due to gravitation between ordinary matter and dark matter. So, being sattelites aligned is a proof of dark matter or a proof that is something acting there.

[@Evghenios79]

I never liked the dark matter theory, but if it's so definite that it doesn't exist, why isn't that proclaimed by the entire scientific community? How come there are several people still supporting the existence of dark matter?

[@gigelcontra7628]

people dont know WHAT dark matter is but they know that SOMETHING that acts like dark matter exists.you can see it in the rotation of stars at the edges of a galaxy

[@johnholmes912]

inventing pixie dust to prop up a failing theory is not science

[@EighthHouseTarot]

MAN THIS GUY IS SCARY. HE LOOKS LIKE HE'S CHIEF WEREWOLF AT BANANA REPUBLIC PRAGUE

[@peskypesky]

I've always thought dark matter was nonsense.

[@lewis7315]

first, the aparent motion of Our local stellar group shows there is no dark matter... Next the big bang did not happen... what happened is that each galaxy formed through a white hole into our dimention/reality...and now the galaxy is being pulled back into the other universe, dimention, giving the extra force of a space time vortex to maintain the speed of galactic rotation ... gravity could be a result of a space time vortex...

[@andersbergstedt7259]

Couldn’t we get around the dynamic viscosity problem by postulating an asymmetric dark matter particle, such that it attracts baryonic matter gravitationally but does not itself feel gravity? Or in other words fairy dust that cannot be ruled out before we have a Planck scale particle accelerator.

[@alastorgdl]

We all remember this nonsense is proposed by those who invoke Occam's Razor for everything and anything Hypocrisy at its best

[@theomegawerty9688]

There's another option. Modern Cosmology is a misinterpretation of the lights in the sky.

[@callumbush1]

Dark matter is as real as pixies!

[@IkeReviews]

Which means heat death is impossible

[@Joaocruz30]

Hi I'm an atheist about dark matter! A "adarkest?

[@jessestrehlow1979]

My mass is 100kg but lm 42 years old the big bang theory would say lm not 42 years old but only a few days old and for every kg of body mass so exists another 10 kg of dark matter so my real mass wd be 1000kg

[@frankdimeglio8216]

WHY THE NOTION OF "CURVED" "SPACE" IS CLEARLY INADEQUATE, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: The BALANCE of being AND experience is essential. Carefully consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. THE EYE is the body. (The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO visible.) The BALANCE of what is BODILY/VISUAL experience is essential. Notice the black space of what is THE EYE. OVERLAY what is the eye in BALANCED relation to/with what is the Earth. Notice what is the BLUE SKY. (The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, what constitutes the falling MAN (ON BALANCE) feels no gravity; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of what is the Moon matches it's revolution. Moreover, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. So, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Ultimately and truly, time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Notice the black space of what is THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Indeed, the stars do twinkle in what is the night sky. THINK !!! THOROUGHLY consider what is A GALAXY. Great. In fact, stellar clustering proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Now, consider what is a spiral galaxy (for example). By Frank DiMeglio

[@fixarama]

Of course creation could not explain

[@earthwormchewer170]

Jesus Christ is God and He died for sins, was buried, and rose on the third day so that He would forgive you without denying justice, because He is Holy AND He loves you. Dark particulate (matter and energy) is a term to satisfy deduction theory. If you know that matter/energy was created, then you dont need anything to justify their dynamics.

[@shipwright6122]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth 🌎🙏🏼

[@davidsisson194]

If this thought process is impossible, can you at least show me some decency. I don't mind being told I'm wrong but at least make an attempt to explain the physics behind the reason it can't. If I'm mistaken, let me learn from the mistake. Really disappointed in the way people assume a PhD somehow makes them a better person, like they've lost all concept of respect. I've been trying to talk to a physicist because I've noticed inconsistencies and forces that hypothetically could explain the phenomena we observe, the only response I ever get is; "I'm the expert, so I'm the one that's right." I might not be an expert in physics, but I have Aspergers, which does make me an expert in logical thinking because I'm emotionally illiterate, don't have them, can't read them and I just don't understand them. I solve 3 or 4 problems a week for other people by approaching it from a direction they didn't even know was possible. Here's my thoughts on dark matter: A. What is gravity but a buildup of energy, we're told mass creates it but Einstein proved that matter is just one of the many characteristics of energy. B. Magnetic fields are natural, we've found that they are created by the flow of electrons but if you instead curve this flow back on itself you can create a rather large field. On the other hand, what about curving the flow of something that can be way more energetic, like photons? They obviously have a relationship because we can see lensing just from gravity (magnetic field creates electrical current and vice versa, gravity creates photons, why wouldn't it work in reverse) and what are around black holes? Let me remind you that the light you see is just the photons that escaped so there's no telling how many are actually in a stable orbit. I have some thoughts on why dark energy isn't what we think as well, let me know if you want my input.

[@vlndfee6481]

Bible is true?!!! If big bang is wrong?

[@blockaderunner]

We never landed on the moon 6 times flawlessly either, did we.

[@sparkyy0007]

The solar system is less than 1.5 million years old... change my mind.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise, not the other way round

[@sparkyy0007]

@@PádraigJMCarey Noted

[@nathanbradforth3408]

You are wrong and you didn't address gravitational lensing which IS SPERICAL IN NATURE FULL STOP. NO DISK SHAPE LENSING JUST SPERICAL

[@makeaguitarnoise]

Dark matter =snake oil🤣

[@PádraigJMCarey]

You mentioned in the comments of the last episode that you'd refute gravitational lensing in the next episode, I guess you've changed your mind and it's now in the NEXT episode? As for your references, even the very first one (Adhikari) has only been cited 34 times, yet one of their key references has been cited nearly 3000 times (Clowe, D., Bradač, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Markevitch, M., Randall, S. W., Jones, C., & Zaritsky, D. (2006). A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648(2), L109.) The second one, Low-Energy Physics Reach of Xenon Detectors for Nuclear-Recoil-Based Dark Matter and Neutrino Experiments (Aprile, E. et al. (XENON Collaboration), 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302) has been cited by 2!! It seems you're picking all the fringe publications to try and prove your point, but yet without presenting ANY mathematics that back up your hypothesis. I'm not trying to berate you, I'm seriously trying to find in your videos the concrete evidence that backs up your claims, but you seem to be making statements that intend to convince people that there is indeed no dark matter, yet without providing such evidence. It's a shame Eric as you were doing such good work for LPP with fusion research, but you seem to have taken this turn to the non-credible in a field you're not qualified in. Sorry to all your avid supporters here, but I think you should stick to fusion - however investment seems to have slowed and you're now 7mil in the red. Perhaps your fringe hypotheses have scared away real investors - ah well, back to Dr Becky (she has a PHD btw)

[@karenandjohn6620]

I looked up the comments from the last video and Eric said that the next video was going to be on dark matter.

[@PádraigJMCarey]

karen and john lol, he specifically said he would explain his counter argument against gravitational lending and excessive galaxial spin

[@PádraigJMCarey]

@@karenandjohn6620 oh, in case you weren't aware, gravitational lensing and the speed of the spin of a galaxy are both key indicators of the existence of dark matter - so they're evidentiary in nature and completely relevant to the subject of dark matter

[@michaelstiller2282]

@@PádraigJMCarey if normal matter only makes up 5% of the universe and dark matter makes up 27% of the universe. Everything we have observed is deformed by gravitational lensing?

[@PádraigJMCarey]

@@michaelstiller2282 to an extent - light gets pulled in a bit when passing by an object with a large mass - more so the closer to the object, less so in open space. So lensing very much indicates areas of this extra matter (whatever it is)

[@fivish]

The BBT like Climate Change has 'consensus' and therefore cannot be denied. To these advocates, facts are a matter of opinion. However, facts must eventually prevail.

[@kevinratay8285]

Dark matter matters

[@altareggo]

Um.... not convinced. PBS Spacetime and most other science shows which try to explain complicated Physics concepts to the "man in the street", usually use or at least show a few equations: after all the universe can be described by mathematics: this is a "given" in science. I challenge him to put up a more convincing and thorough explanation of his hypotheses, using rigorous mathematical backing. He most likely won't read this, but if you do, MR. Lerner, please take up my challenge.