What If Our Understanding of Gravity Is Wrong?

Thank you to CuriosityStream for supporting PBS. For more information go to curiositystream.thld.co/PBSSP...
Check Out @PBSVitals here: • Do You Lie To Your Doc...
What if there is no such thing as dark matter? What if our understanding of gravity is just wrong? New work is taking another shot at that Einstein guy. Let’s see if we’ve finally scored a hit with Modified Newtonian Dynamics aka MOND.
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
GFX Visualizations: Ajay Manuel
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Assistant Producer: Setare Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Ben Dimock
Daniel Alexiuc
Pravin Mansukhani
Peter Barrett
Nils Anderson
David Neumann
Ari Paul
Charlie
Mrs. Tiffany Poindexter
Leo Koguan
Sandy Wu
Matthew Miller
Ahmad Jodeh
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
David Nicklas
Henry Van Styn
Quasar Supporters
Nenado763
Alex Kern
Michael Schneider
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Yogi
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Hank S
Hypernova Supporters
Justin Smith
drollere
Joe Moreira
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Nick Berard
Paul Stehr-Green
Adam Walters
Russell Pope
Ben Delo
Nicholas Newlin
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Joseph Salomone
Matthew O'Connor
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
m0nk
John Hofmann
Daniel Muzquiz
william bryan
Timothy McCulloch
Gamma Ray Burst
Jered D Sweeney
Anatoliy Nagornyy
comboy
Brett Baker
Daniel Morgan
Jeremy Soller
Jonathan Conerly
Andre Stechert
Ross Bohner
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
Nubble
Chris Navrides
Scott R Calkins
Carl Scaggs
The Mad Mechanic
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Ben Campbell
Lawrence Tholl, DVM
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Ádám Kettinger
MD3
Endre Pech
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Pratik Mukherjee
Geoffrey Clarion
Nate
Adrian Posor
Darren Duncan
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
Eric Webster
David Johnston
J. King
Michael Barton
Christopher Barron
James Ramsey
Justin Jermyn
Mr T
Andrew Mann
Peter Mertz
Isaac Suttell
Devon Rosenthal
Oliver Flanagan
Robert Walter
Bruce B
Ismael Montecel
Simon Oliphant
Mirik Gogri
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Brandon Lattin
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Protius Protius
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Martin Skans
Michael Conroy
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Tonyface
John Robinson
A G
Kevin Lee
justahat
Yurii Konovaliuk
John Funai
Cass Costello
Tristan Deloche
Bradley Jenkins
Kyle Hofer
Daniel Stříbrný
Luaan
AlecZero
Vlad Shipulin
Cody
Malte Ubl
King Zeckendorff
Nick Virtue
Scott Gossett
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Daniel Lyons
DFaulk
GrowingViolet
Kevin Warne
Andreas Nautsch
Brandon labonte

[@HIIMCWYN]

"What If Our Understanding of Gravity Is Wrong?" Sounds like me justifying my test answers to my physics lecturer

[@Tintelinus]

"Caspen the question was how fast will the apple fall after 4s"

[@p382742937423y4]

@@Tintelinus why is that?

[@ToneyCrimson]

@@Tintelinus What if the question is faster than the apple after 4s!?

[@nahometesfay1112]

@@ToneyCrimson well get back to me when you measure the speed of a question

[@rumotu]

@@nahometesfay1112 und*(word count/letters per minute). Where understanding is a shifting variable that depends on students knowledge*concentration.

[@dickbutt7310]

"What If Our Understanding of Gravity Is Wrong?" I don't know about you guys but I'm pretty sure mine is.

[@stanimirborov3765]

XD

[@-_Nuke_-]

xD

[@PhilipsIndoorControl]

Nice one!

[@mleonard4628]

There is no such thing as gravity the Earth just sucks

[@NickiRusin]

same bro

[@iviecarp]

12:54 Someone put a ton of work into this little animation of a few seconds, I feel a bit bad for them that it's passed over so quickly because it really is excellent work. Thought I'd leave a comment in the hopes they notice so they know their work is appreciated

[@PaulHobbs23]

is Dark Matter a Bloodborne character?

[@iviecarp]

@@PaulHobbs23 Not sure if you're serious but if you are, no it's not a Bloodborne character.

[@Peterwhitlock]

The better the animation the better seers like me can solve things and give other than limits of known data by perspective being different. All I can say is BRAVO on all of it.

[@paysour1]

I think they're all wrong. Gravity is not a force that pulls you. I think gravity is a force that pushes. Gravity is a byproduct of the reaction of dark matter with the physical world. Dark matter is the most abundant substance in the universe. To understand gravity it cannot be left out of the equation. Gravitational forces do not pull you into a wormhole. Gravitational forces push you into a wormhole. Water rushes into a drain because it is being pushed by the pressure differential. When a damn breaks it's not because of Any force on the dry side of the wall that is pulling. It is the enormous push of the water on the wet side of the damn. Gravity is a force created by dark matter trying to reclaim physical space occupied by matter. A wormhole allows Dark Matter to flow out of this galaxy into another parallel universe or to a distant part of this universe where dark matter is deficient. A collapsing star causes a rapid decline in the amount of space that matter occupies. That sets up a Cascade effect in the dark matter surrounding the star. The density of matter has a direct proportional effect on dark matter that surrounds it. If all the known mathematical formulas for Gravity are combined in the symbol 'N". We can then say that this concept of gravity would be represented by the formula Gravity = -1(N)

[@paysour1]

@@PaulHobbs23 I think they're all wrong. Gravity is not a force that pulls you. I think gravity is a force that pushes. Gravity is a byproduct of the reaction of dark matter with the physical world. Dark matter is the most abundant substance in the universe. To understand gravity it cannot be left out of the equation. Gravitational forces do not pull you into a wormhole. Gravitational forces push you into a wormhole. Water rushes into a drain because it is being pushed by the pressure differential. When a damn breaks it's not because of Any force on the dry side of the wall that is pulling. It is the enormous push of the water on the wet side of the damn. Gravity is a force created by dark matter trying to reclaim physical space occupied by matter. A wormhole allows Dark Matter to flow out of this galaxy into another parallel universe or to a distant part of this universe where dark matter is deficient. A collapsing star causes a rapid decline in the amount of space that matter occupies. That sets up a Cascade effect in the dark matter surrounding the star. The density of matter has a direct proportional effect on dark matter that surrounds it. If all the known mathematical formulas for Gravity are combined in the symbol 'N". We can then say that this concept of gravity would be represented by the formula Gravity = -1(N)

[@xmanlatter6013]

This is an excellent video that catches non-researcher up on the subject on what’s going on in the field. I really appreciate the channel!

[@sd4dfg2]

"It's okay to be uncertain" - if only more people would take that to heart, we might be less polarized about everything

[@goingballisticmotion5455]

Says Hiesenberg.

[@makalribera6742]

Says religions

[@Windrake101]

@@Armageist And that's why you don't apply philosophies universally. Only where they may be relevant.

[@Oly1]

People dont really like it and thinks you are weird if you do.

[@patriciapalmer1377]

It is kill or be killed and no room for common ground where you meet and discuss. If you disagree with anything, in education, science, politics, religion, et al, you are now the enemy that must be annihilated. A destroyer of innovation, creativity, morale and morality, and ultimately, civilized society.

[@brenorocha6687]

"It's ok to be uncertain." Wise words. That's one of the main reasons why I like this channel so much.

[@tsamuel6224]

Real scientists are agnostics, real often.

[@davidhoward4715]

Uncertainty is the essence of science. But this is not a new thing; it always has been.

[@Gandalf_Lundgren]

Found Heisenberg!

[@Spectre-wd9dl]

That's the basis of science. It's always waiting to be proven wrong. Nothing is 100%. The more you prove not wrong the more you can be sure it's true.

[@tomasmood2012]

There will be, at some point, a leap in our understanding of these things. Most scientist will discard their old "truths" and adopt the new, but we are still human. There are still humans thinking the earth is flat. If someone eventually prove there is no thing like dark matter there will still be some that cling to the old. As long as there isn't a 100% consensus we will know that science is still working. Not all will be onboard the correct theory.

[@djohnsto2]

For a really different take on MOND, have a look at Verlinde's theory of Entropic Gravity. He posits that gravity is an emergent property of the universe caused by entropically-driven forces - Like pseudo-force that causes molecular self-assembly at micro scales - Tiny microstructures form higher-entropy constructions by the particles moving around, but there is no magnetic or electric force actually moving them - Their motion comes from the fact that upon re-arranging, their entropy will be higher. So the "force" that moves them is an emergent property.

[@timothypatrick9476]

I love this subject! One of your best! Thanks Matt! Keep that open mind!

[@arpier7754]

"I withhold my judgment because it's okay to be uncertain." Brilliant! Wish we heard more of this.

[@yaka2490]

haha yeah totally lets see more people being uncertain as this then allows thinking to be changed.

[@rydz656]

Einstein was too busy banging his cousin to do any real math.

[@AppleOfThineEye]

@@rydz656 "This brilliant person did something horrible; therefore none of their contributions are worth anything at all."

[@crystaldazz]

@RabinoBoricuaVirtual It's silly to even consider those things. They don't exist. Our time and energy are better spent learning about things which are verifiable.

[@zerocooljpn]

quantum scientist alright

[@thelegalsystem]

Those Bekenstein "album covers" got a good chuckle out of me

[@nugboy420]

Yeah just seeing it and commented before seeing this but still a nice touch.

[@MRicciardi]

I have never understood so much of a subject I know so little without the need to fixate on any mathematical equation. Cheers mate!

[@Cgeta4]

The nice thing about rivaling theories is that some ideas for one theory can be useful in figuring out new things for the other and vice versa

[@morningmadera]

MOND is not a theory

[@Nikolas_Davis]

"If adding one field doesn't work, why not add another?" Hey, that's what Ptolemy said for epicycles.

[@jfbeam]

Ding. We have a winner! The concentric circles model of the solar system works, if you don't measure too closely. (which they couldn't at the time.) The inverse square law works, on small enough scales.

[@ravenlord4]

Or "our new theory works in 18 dimensions"

[@rfichokeofdestiny]

True. But all of this, including Newton and Einstein, are just mathematical models (with varying degrees of accuracy) that we’ve constructed to fit observations. There’s nothing hallowed about any of it other than it has proven useful to humanity. There is a practical benefit to finding the simplest formulation of a particular model. But there’s nothing that says the universe has to behave in a simple way. It clearly doesn’t, since our existing models don’t explain galaxy rotation. The only question is how to come up with a better model. And that better model could include new particles or it could include a better description of gravity. Or maybe even both.

[@NostyFripples]

George Orwell on 🌎: “Does NOT rest on reasoning or on experiment but on AUTHORITY” ‘As I Please’ “SOMEWHERE or other-I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan-Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers-what I believe is true-that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ’everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.”

[@NostyFripples]

Tesla on relativity: “The theory, wraps all these errors & fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people BLIND to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple WHOM IGNORANT PEOPLE take for a king. It’s exponents are very brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than SCIENTISTS. ***NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE RELATIVITY PROPOSITIONS HAS BEEN PROVED***”

[@IanSlothieRolfe]

It might be an interesting idea for a video to look back historically at widely known problems or widely held theories that subsequently proved incorrect or incomplete, and how they were resolved, and if these may show any hints for the problems that Physics is stuck on at present.

[@ComradeArthur]

Phlogiston says "hi."

[@kimuvat2461]

We only need more epicycles

[@jonnnnniej]

Love that idea!

[@asdfasdf71865]

@@kimuvat2461 so do we need more fields or do we need more particles? these are probably both wrong

[@hby7768]

It will not show hints since it is completely different science. All it will do is show you "we dont know" - it is like trying to show a blind man born blind the Mona Lisa, they cant see it, you can describe all you want, they will never know it from a visual stand point.

[@pavangaonkardonigadde]

How can anyone possibly don't like this video this is amazing... Live it .. please do continue to produce this quality content ...

[@davidschroeder3272]

Matt has got to be the very best at explaining complex physics ideas to a general audience. He provides a clarity that is unmatched in any other physics videos that I've ever watched.

[@Runeite51]

I love this: "Does the theory make any predictions beyond the observations that inspired it?"

[@GabrielAndreG]

New IG bio

[@ethribin4188]

That is a big thing! If you dont make sure the result isnt created out of the desired goal, but out of a conclusion.

[@joeboxter3635]

Yes: big bang, black holes, and gravitational waves. GR is generally right. The formulation is wrong. Lack of proper formulation is causing us grief. In particular, poor formulation is resulting in a couple of poor predictions and impass to other theories. Oh, the MOND he talks about is bogus.

[@0MoTheG]

Apply that to dark matter and check it.

[@brandong6766]

I think time dilation needs to be a huge part of the formula. The stars in the center of galaxy are experiencing time much different than the stars on the edge of a galaxy. Gravitation lensing would be photons changing speed allowing to change direction easier. The speed of light in a vacume vs the speed of light on the edge of a galaxy, yes there will be a difference because gravity effects time, time is speed.

[@NewMessage]

Douglas Adams already gave us the only theory that truly explains everything. Whatever the simplest, most irreducible expression of the equation that the Universe is based on actually is.... it CLEARLY contains an arithmetic error.

[@teemusid]

W H A T D O Y O U G E T I F Y O U M U L T I P L Y S I X B Y N I N E

[@rawnukles]

the angle of the observer watching sun light refracted through rain drops = 42

[@ErraticPT]

So the universe is running out of bits and running into rounding errors? 🤔

[@Aurinkohirvi]

I won't thumb up because you already have 42 thumb ups, and to me that is the answer. But I nod instead.

[@absalomdraconis]

@@ErraticPT : Quantum mechanics is rounding errors without value loss.

[@darkplatina]

Thank you for doing this episode! One of my physics undergrad profs was a big proponent of MOND and I always wanted to hear more about the "fringe" theories opposing dark matter since it seems to be so ubiquitous, at least here on the Space side of KZbin. Very interesting!

[@eljcd]

This lecture by Stacy McGaugh may be of interest to you, then: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKe7p3Vrat2hidk

[@paysour1]

I think they're all wrong. Gravity is not a force that pulls you. I think gravity is a force that pushes. Gravity is a byproduct of the reaction of dark matter with the physical world. Dark matter is the most abundant substance in the universe. To understand gravity it cannot be left out of the equation. Gravitational forces do not pull you into a wormhole. Gravitational forces push you into a wormhole. Water rushes into a drain because it is being pushed by the pressure differential. When a damn breaks it's not because of Any force on the dry side of the wall that is pulling. It is the enormous push of the water on the wet side of the damn. Gravity is a force created by dark matter trying to reclaim physical space occupied by matter. A wormhole allows Dark Matter to flow out of this galaxy into another parallel universe or to a distant part of this universe where dark matter is deficient. A collapsing star causes a rapid decline in the amount of space that matter occupies. That sets up a Cascade effect in the dark matter surrounding the star. The density of matter has a direct proportional effect on dark matter that surrounds it. If all the known mathematical formulas for Gravity are combined in the symbol 'N". We can then say that this concept of gravity would be represented by the formula Gravity = -1(N)

[@FrankyboyFloyd]

Ahhh physics topics and videos! Love watching them even if I dont understand a thing….

[@markg.7865]

Same here, I still don't know what dark matter is....just glad it won't be on the test!

[@NeonVisual]

Gravity is the simulation's processing speed slowing down when there's a lot of matter in one location to refresh.

[@Yora21]

If the speed of light was infinite and particles could interact with each other without delay, would the whole history of the universe happen in a single instant?

[@OGSontar]

@@Yora21 Just load up Universe Sandbox and at the bottom there's a Time slider. As below, so above.

[@diracpulse3101]

@@Yora21 Absolutelly, mass and movement through time are connected. And the speed of light is in a way infinite, from the light perspective.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

Any time now speed runners will find a way to use that to clip trough a wall

[@SMiki55]

@@Yora21 if the speed of light was infinite the hardware would burn

[@Narthanael]

Oh damn the poetry. A bloddy knifefight with Occam's razor

[@thewizzard3150]

Pity they don't have enough bloddy gray matter to work together on a solution.

[@MarjanSI]

Thank you! Soooo good explained and accurate! 👍

[@mmille10]

I appreciate that people are trying to find some principle(s) to replace "dark matter." I've long been irritated by the term, because it became obvious to me that it's used as a placeholder for "something, we don't know what." It takes our current context of "matter leads to gravity" and puts a "shade" over it, because we can't see what's causing the effect in these instances, seemingly as a defense of General Relativity. It isn't satisfactory, because it doesn't really explain anything. It sounds too much like Sagan's "invisible dragons."

[@solapowsj25]

Precisely.

[@theminutemenreport8822]

Gravity doesnt make sense so they came up with dark matter; on earth, gravity can be explained all the same with buoyant pressure and kinetic/potential motion. Off earth, Mabey we just dont understand the nature of planetary movement like we thought. gravitational constant is a joke every medium has a constant.

[@TheArtofFugue]

👍

[@grimfpv292]

Electromagnetism likely explains it, in addition to the particles and radiation not taken into the equation.

[@TheDogPa]

Same as 'ritual' to an archaeologist. It means 'we have no idea.' lol

[@martinmacphail3094]

the album covers are so good

[@N73B60]

LOL

[@moarsaur]

The fight game graphic was solid, too. And that was one of the better "Space Time" finales. Agreed the album covers were a standout, though.

[@tantrispicks2440]

I was disappointed that BLS's important work in Unforgiveness Field Theory went unmentioned. It accounts for the warping of spacetime due to the presence of heavy metal, if one interprets "Lakes of fire filled with regret" as stars. Also, the cover art is better. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qofYqXeapt9_fK8

[@justinoser9482]

I don’t often lol at these videos, but I certainly did with the Now That’s What I Call Physics image! 😂

[@bibia666]

now that´s what i call a comment ;)

[@travisboatner]

Matt, has anyone every flipped the math, instead of saying mass attracts, and instead thought that void repels? If I was creating a universe with the rule that mass attracts you would expect everything to be in one big ball. But if you say void repels, you would expect it to look similar to what it does. It would cause an ever expanding universe. And if it repels more in the presence of more mass eventually the mass would be so much that the void would tear it apart. It’s scale could be fractal like in nature working just as well for big objects as small. It would be possible for an atomic mass to be too great for it to be stable as well. Just wondering out of curiosity if anyone’s ever theorized a flipped model like that.

[@davidking8472]

I like that idea, maybe the ‘negative void pressure’ could- instead of slowly ripping galaxies apart- could push the outskirts of the galaxies inward in a very stable manner, until it exceeds the gravitational attraction at which point the galaxies are ripped apart and the universe slowly marches towards heat death

[@Sin526]

I'm all but certain this is correct

[@travisboatner]

@@Sin526 the more you think about it, the more sense it makes. For both large and small scale

[@svladcjelli4236]

This seems great, you kill dark matter and dark energy in one blow while retaining what we know about relativity. Someone crunch these numbers!

[@grandmasteryoda3187]

The issue here is if the universe is finite than anything outside would be void so you would have the void acting against the expansion which could still result in your hypothesis of attraction when everything would still be forced into a single point. As the void would be greater outside the universe than inside so logical the void would crush the universe.

[@Martino2156]

The way gravity and light act in space reminds me of the way things act in water such as the way spinning and non-spinning balls of various sizes react to each other and the way light act in water

[@WhatAreDrums729]

"TeVeS" is all well and good, but they missed the chance to call it "STeVe"

[@CABOOSEBOB]

It’s Carlos tevez

[@bumpty9830]

STeVe Gravity. And inevitably STePh, STePhANe, STeVO. Love it. Someday (after capitalism) when science is more about collaboration and discovery than grant writing and career survival, this sort of opportunity won't be missed quite so often.

[@appollo1379]

...or Telly Savalas

[@twincast2005]

Steve! 😢

[@b.munster2830]

Wonder!

[@Narthanael]

One day I will be like "oh yes Matt, that makes perfect sense if you think about darkspace-relativity in an n-space hyperverse. nice thinking on your part"

[@hindigente]

This was funny, nice commenting on your part.

[@gristlevonraben]

Subspace. I have a video on that

[@jorgepeterbarton]

If you say "lorentzian manifold" then thats all you need to be a type III alien-god entity in [insert scifi title]

[@JakeTheTrouserSnake]

@@jorgepeterbarton thanks, now I can't stop thinking about the fallout 4 Lorenzo Cabott quest line for some reason 😅😂

[@bruhmania7359]

Half the people who watch these videos are the ancient aliens watcher drunk uncle type

[@dougselsam5393]

Reminds me of all the complicated fudge factors needed to calculate planetary positions before they figured out the earth orbits the sun. Or Flogiston. Any time things keep getting more complicated, or you need to invent new types of matter to explain things, it turns out the basic understanding was lacking.

[@cosmicwanderer891]

This is true. Dark matter and dark energy are luminous aether of our era.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Dark matter is just normal matter minus electromagnetism (so even simpler) and dark energy is just space expanding. They are even simpler than stuff we already know.

[@dougselsam5393]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana The term "dark matter" was originally a "placeholder" term, to indicate a mysterious discrepancy, not meant to be taken literally. Through habit and popularization, it is often treated as something real, but dark matter is just a question, not an answer. Meanwhile, of course you can always "explain" any unexplained phenomenon by making up a new "substance" and assigning it whatever attributes would serve as a temporary explanation, but historically, it seldom turns out to be the actual explanation. Look up phlogiston! For about a century, flogiston was "follow the science" for sure true, as any educated scientist of the time could have explained to you. Then, suddenly, one day, it was all revealed as complete nonsense. Human nature never changes. :) Here, I'll look it up for you: phlo·gis·ton /flōˈjistən/ noun: phlogiston a substance supposed by 18th-century chemists to exist in all combustible bodies, and to be released in combustion.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

​@@dougselsam5393 Plogistron was certainly closer to the truth than anything else people could have come up with then let alone did. You certainly weren't going to come up with oxidation by trying to make new parameters and fit them to the data differently for each situation you cannot scientifically define (location) and then amalgamate a solution from a bizarrely working force that has no theory to explain why it is behaving weirdly. I mean you could get something mathematically similar to oxidisation, but not actually oxidisation.

[@dougselsam5393]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Well thanks for making my point. They didn't know about electrons, so they made up a mythical "substance" that they assigned the characteristics to "explain" what they couldn't grasp at the time, just like "dark matter" today,, and please, don't even get me started on "dark energy"...

[@whs9207]

"What If Our Understanding of Gravity Is Wrong?" General Relativity describes almost all of our observations with an extraordinary degree of precision. It would be more accurate to replace the word "Wrong" with "Incomplete"

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

It's possible to be conceptually wrong & mathematically correct. That's the case with classical physics at medium scales & low energies. When you find physical phenomena that is remarkably resistant to being incorporated into your model, that's a good hint that your model might be conceptually wrong -- even though it does produce the right mathematical answers in many other cases.

[@DStecks]

Congratulations, you've discovered the concept of clickbait

[@sadistksuffring1537]

@@dr.zoidberg8666 yes but this doesn't mean our understanding is wrong. Like he said, it is incomplete. if what the video posits is correct, then we do still understand between the drop offs. we would just be furthering our knowledge and its not going to show what we already do know to be wrong. The video is a misnomer making wild claims they can't back.

[@Fractured_Code]

"dark dust" just sounds like dark matter with extra steps

[@LoisoPondohva]

Sounds like someone's a His Dark Materials fan

[@dan7291able]

@@LoisoPondohva Rick and Morty

[@_Killkor]

Honestly, I'm waiting for the dark smoke.

[@blackoak4978]

I've moved quite a bit on this subject. I was ambivalent when I first learned of dark matter as a particle, but as years went by and experiment after experiment eliminated possible explanations of dark matter I became extremely dubious about it. I thought MOND would be a good alternative, but it does seem to be getting obsurdly convoluted. The galaxies that appear to lack dark matter make it pretty hard to argue against dark matter as a particle. At this point the only thing I'm confident about is that our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed in some way. I can't wait for that revelation that will lead to a complete M theory that explains black holes, dark energy, and dark matter

[@saskoilersfan]

Dirt and soil is dark matter. Stars is a light matter of holes. The dark matter and light holes form a crust around earth. A hollow world earth sits inside.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@saskoilersfan The ultimate unification and understanding of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. UNDERSTANDING THE BALANCED AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL RELATION BETWEEN GRAVITY, “MASS", AND inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is what is fundamental regarding BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=MC2 is CLEARLY and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (ENERGY has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=MC2 is CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be F=ma. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as this balances gravity AND inertia; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=MC2 is CLEARLY and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE. I have explained why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN on balance. Great. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. THE PLANETS are not falling in “curved" “space" in relation to what is THE SUN. Carefully consider WHAT IS THE EARTH. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE !!! Great. By Frank DiMeglio

[@saskoilersfan]

@@frankdimeglio8216 you are hilarious with your true lies and babble. The compass always points south. E=mc2 is old thinking. E xp3 = m6c4 + (v=r2.) Ride the lightening . These disks create different types of lightening and magnetics . Create the lightening... Magnatism to grab and control lightening. Then slide with magnatism Instead of a bullet train... A lightening train... Lightening can become solid.. Use a electromagnetic coupling to encase the bolt of lightening . This is like hand cuffing a beam of energy to float coupling.. Once this is done .. Use coupling to create lightening...

[@saskoilersfan]

@This try 6 dimension. Your universe is open space. It's called space because it is very open and big space.. The stars are holes in a bigger surface . A world inside a bigger world. This world is the core of another world hollowed out. The eternal sun is on the other side of those holes. The space inside hollow world is about minus 300. The space outside hollow world is about plus 300 due to eternal light and heat. Hollow world shades and protects earth . It appears NASA lies to the human fools. But humans are liars. Only a few are accomplished truthers. A world inside a world , darkness by hollow world. Protected from eternal all day heating sun. A world of liars who's only success is through the 7 deadly sins to success.. Humans are the very small mice like people .. I see humans like Disney saw humans... He saw children as mice.

[@saskoilersfan]

@This 2 diamension is also called flat prints. 6 dimension is holograph photography.. The image is a perfect reproduction when all 6 diamensions come together.. 6 d , far superior over 3 d.. It's almost real life... Just not solid. All light manipulation .

[@coldwynn]

"It's okay to be uncertain." Words we need to hear more often.

[@helpmegetto1millsubswithou55]

The "idearr" lol I love the way he says ideal

[@HarryHaller1963]

"It's okay to be uncertain." There should be a public-service announcement around this statement playing everywhere, all the time.

[@tiamagus6641]

13:18 Particle is a Hunter from Bloodborne and Mond looks to be Mordin Solus from Mass Effect. I lol'd pretty hard!

[@NimbleBard48]

Was looking for that comment :D

[@omegapuschel]

It's specifically the figma of the bloodborne hunter. You can even see the hip joints

[@joegonzalez6241]

@ i love this part of the video. it shows a vortex collaspe in the galaxy. like water going down a drain except it get tossed out. unlike water that collaspes in

[@qbul]

10/10 for the episode ending joke. Minimum action => maximum results.

[@v0ldy54]

Kinda feels like first times programming, when the program gave the wrong output instead of fixing the general algorithm you just added a special case for that input that just gave you the output you already knew was right :)

[@Mitsoxfan]

Multiply both sides by 0. Done.

[@sujathaontheweb3740]

What a nice analogy! 😄

[@jfbeam]

That's pretty much the universal problem of trying to create equations to explain what we can see. Or what we _think_ we can see. When two plus two turns up a five, we start looking for that "dark one", instead of changing the batteries.

[@Meilk27]

@@jfbeam love your comment

[@jfbeam]

@@Meilk27 It's my favorite physics joke... "2+2=5, for very large values of two." In physics, it's a normal day for your equations to come up with the "wrong" answer (based on what is observed.) Sometimes it does lead to discoveries -- that's how we found neutrinos. With Dark matter, we've been hunting for any sign for decades. The fact that we have zip, zero, nada, strongly suggests to me that it doesn't exist, which means our fundamental understanding is wrong, and/or our observations are off/incomplete.

[@purplenanite]

3:45 "at very low values, they(acceleration) start to plateau out" - that feels a lot like quantization ...

[@garethdean6382]

Does it? I mean radiation is quantized but still obeys the inverse square law. At low values it doesn't plateau, the individual particles comprising it just become more obvious.

[@trollme.trollmehard.9524]

This. Also, relieved that I'm not alone in the connection.

[@Tempus0]

Makes me think of the ultraviolet catastrophe and how the quantization of light impacts the blackbody radiation curve.

[@HolyMith]

It's not like quantization at all. If you are referring to the ground state energy of a quantum system, this is a minimum, not a maximum. Also, in quantum systems, we are dealing with precisely packaged exchanges of energy/quantum numbers, whereas on galactic scales, we are looking at the statistical behaviour of massive quantities of classically-behaving matter. The fact that two physcial phenomena have a limit does not connect them in any meaningful sense.

[@thstroyur]

@@HolyMith My first thought was that the OP made a connection with the photoelectric effect - but yeah, pretty much what you wrote...

[@frankmalenfant2828]

One rule of thumb I often use in life is that when a solution becomes too convoluted, it's time to ask myself if this is the right solution. MOND feels like this ever growing messy pile of patches that is even more unlikely than completely unknown matter at this point

[@mechanicasurefix1418]

Thank you for always providing a cross cutaway view of scientific dilemmas

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Feels like we're really chasing our tail adding in all this complexity. "Let's just add a few more fields to GR so that our theory fits the data"

[@tropingreenhorn]

We have ti try different approaches, and test and observe until we have the best and most conclusive explanation

[@barrettl2473]

That's also what they did with their mathematics around dark matter dark energy and black holes

[@adamsoltesz5237]

Science chasing its tail? We measure "c" in m/s. But, we define a metre as the distance light travels in x seconds, and define a second as the time it takes light to travel x metres. Or c= the distance light travels in the time it takes to go exactly that far.

[@zjz1]

"Let's just invent a new thing called dark matter that conveniently has all the properties to solve any contradictions between our observation and our current understanding of physics"

[@adamsoltesz5237]

@@zjz1 this is literally how science works. We know I thing is there but can't figure it out. So, we make a name for it, then spend 100yrs finding the answers. Now that $$$ are involved, some ppl are dead set on keeping the status quo. Look at history; its a cycle.

[@Krazzy88]

The more i watch him, the more he looks like Tyrion Lannister.

[@billyt8868]

what

[@thevinarokiarajl2149]

lmao

[@alexanderhirst1171]

Matt has admitted to this himself (or at least seeing various comments about it) in a recent episode lol - "regular sized Tyrion Lannister" I believe

[@lazertroll702]

.. more like _resembles the actor whom played the character of Tyrion Lannister_ 🙄

[@hicknopunk]

@@lazertroll702 so...his stunt double? 😁

[@z.tanriverdi]

Thanks, Chris Pine. Such a great video.

[@vincent21212]

Ive been using this channel to fall asleep successfully for years! I make an honest effort to understand, I really do...

[@ravenlord4]

This reminds me of the history of Brownian motion. It was clear that small macroscopic particles like dust and pollen moved in a random way. So they were either being affected by some unseen force or particle, or our understanding of physics was wrong. I guess that would be the steampunk version of "Dark Matter", which would have been an adequate enough placeholder name. Then we developed better microscopes and determined that it was a particle related phenomenon after all, and said matter was no longer dark. I suspect that the same will be true again. As we develop better detectors, dark matter will be identified and given a better name ;)

[@absalomdraconis]

I suspect that some variant of MOND will be found to make accurate predictions about dark matter...

[@themcchuck8400]

@@absalomdraconis Once they add enough epicycles, that is.

[@prismaticmarcus]

if we find new particles can we call them sagons?

[@ravenlord4]

@@prismaticmarcus Since ordinary matter clumps around it, I'd vote for Clingons (apparently the "k" version is copyrighted by someone) . . .

[@Zouzack]

@@hyperduality2838 what in tarnation

[@spudhead169]

Sabine recently suggested that choosing between modified gravity or dark matter may not be the correct approach, but a combination of both may be the answer.

[@j.pershing2197]

They wont recognize electricity in space although its present everywhere you look.

[@tarmaque]

I loves me some Sabine.

[@ToroidalX]

@@j.pershing2197 dude stop with the bs. The electric universe is as good as the flat earth, which means is useless. Instead of trying to sound smart publish your results and make predictions that match the reality, like any decent hypothesis that wants to be a theory

[@UteChewb]

Yes, a very interesting video. She pointed out that fields are manifested as particles and vice versa, so what we call dark matter may be seeing a field/particles at different scales. Wouldn't be the first time that a long running controversy was resolved when it was realised that truth was somewhere in the middle.

[@pierrecurie]

@@j.pershing2197 We see light from other stars, so yes there is electricity everywhere. What's your point?

[@chrischiesa609]

I just read most of a book about Einstein's work, and one thing struck me: E. and others, back in the 1900s, said something among themselves and to the world in a paper, to the effect that, if there were unexpected geometrical distortions in spacetime at large distances or size scales, non-Euclidean factors could cause "parallel lines to diverge" (or words to that effect), but that habits of thought would lead humans to propose a new force before it would occur to them to consider other possibilities. I don't explain it very well.

[@willmael7914]

I think you explained it pretty well.

[@andrewlee3981]

Love it when people question our current understanding of gravity

[@Anonymous-df8it]

Unless they are flat earthers!

[@johnmudd6453]

I stand firm with gravity

[@nobodyknows3180]

well, you can't have all these ideas just floating around.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@ThrowAway271...if you define a flat surface to be one where all points are roughly equidistant from a common center!

[@Arc125]

Can we use "Now That's What I Call Physics" as a narrative device more? Loved it!

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Relativity Applications of Mass published book 📖... nice the Sir Isaac Newton Machine manufactured. EINSTEIN INCH Equation as the center of Galaxy, pages 112,113, 2020 Nobel Laureate Andrea Ghez shows graphically. DEVICE, clean energy technology 💪. Step to the Inch equation beyond General Relativity, 1905 to 1915 mechanical.

[@js2010ish]

👍🏼

[@kashu7691]

@@channelwarhorse3367 me too

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@kashu7691 understanding how to manufacture the Sir Isaac Newton Machine. That is COOL 😎 Industrialization takes MONEY 💰 🤣 😎 the Standard Model is the Periodic Table. The secret is Sphere Making as 2020 Nobel Laureate Andrea Ghez .. Oh Sir Roger Penrose should have presented the Einstein INCH .. Einstein from Patent Office published 🏢 and to Patent office determined .. HIRED to manufacture clean energy technology 💪. Helps... you need money 💰 😏 to manufacture... you understand how to tic the water 💧 molecule to full elevator control above the Traditional Viz Qua .. ? Where are you? Who are you? Are Galileo pendulum Samos or merit Archimedes of Syracuse to have such Faith in the Einstein INCH equation 😃

[@channelwarhorse3367]

@@kashu7691 PBS, reference 2 in book Relativity Applications of Mass, David Bodanis... Nova .. book how to manufacture the Sir Isaac Newton Machine, is also the Einstein INCH equation published many years 😀

[@barnabypine7717]

When I last went to CERN, I was taken round by 90 year old man. He could not work out how to turn the volume down on vlc media player, but the mad worked at CERN for 60 years of his working life and continues to do tours after he retired. He does not think dark matter exists, he hypothesises that gravity can be seen as a charge on the scale of galaxies. This solves the problems that dark matter throws up. He devised 4 relatively simple experiments to prove this. At the time the large hadron collider was undergoing maintenance. His one hope is that he lives to the day that they perform his experiments.

[@culwin]

Ugh. An electric universe poster.

[@barnabypine7717]

@@culwin just sharing an experience, I aint no physicist.

[@mikebermea9366]

I have been developing a novel idea of the universal machine over the past two years, which I refer to as the Time Force Hypothesis. Initially, it began as an exploration into understanding gravity but evolved into something more profound. This concept not only provides a robust and plausible explanation for gravity but also explores our mysterious observation of "time" as a mechanical action triggered by the expansion of our universe. The foundational premise of this idea is currently speculative, yet it intuitively resonates from a logical standpoint. Essentially, it suggests that time serves as the fourth spatial dimension, and we, as three-dimensional entities, exist on a membrane well-described by quantum field theory. This membrane constitutes the fabric of our observable universe, suspended in four-dimensional space. A pivotal event unfolded in the fourth dimension, causing the energetic pressure on one side of the membrane to surpass that of the surrounding 4D space-a phenomenon we recognize as the Big Bang. Since that momentous event, our lower-dimensional 3D fabric has been propelled through the fourth dimension, leading to what we perceive as both time and gravity. In simpler terms, our experience of irreversible time results from our 3D fabric moving at an incredible velocity through 4D space. This concept also explains why matter contains significant amounts of energy, as expressed in the famous equation E=mc^2. In this context, the equation becomes a calculation of the momentum within matter as we traverse a higher dimension at extreme velocity. This perspective offers a reason behind the incredible amounts of energy that would be necessary to alter our trajectory through the time dimension, as often speculated by theoretical physicists. Overcoming the unimaginable momentum of our current velocity away from our origin point (0,0,0,0) would require a tremendous force. Remarkably, the description of time outlined above emerged from my endeavor to define the essence of gravity. Adopting this paradigm-shifting perspective could simplify the unification of quantum mechanics and gravity by essentially removing gravity as a "fundamental force" from the equation. This exploration into the nature of gravity revealed that even the greatest minds in modern physics are still grappling with understanding what gravity "is." Motivated by this mystery, I dedicated myself to researching the issue full-time about two years ago. After thousands of hours and nearly 100 physics books, I have developed this idea. The Big Bang event was not the start of everything in four-dimensional space but rather an energetic disturbance. However, it could indeed mark the beginning of our 3D universe, as stepping down a dimension offers certain liberties due to the change in reference frame perspective. The hot, dense moment created an energy gradient in 4D space, and this energetic pressure wave is the driving force behind the expansion of our three-dimensional fabric. This outward push in 4D space can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics, as a quest for balance or equilibrium is underway in the higher dimension of time. Through Einstein's equivalence principle, we understand that this acceleration affects our lower dimensional reference frame with the "equivalence" of an emergent gravitational force, hence the name "equivalence principle." I postulate that the perfect amount of acceleration since the Big Bang is what causes the phenomenon observed by Newton, leading to his discovery of the gravitational constant, “Big G”, calculated as 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−26.674×10−11m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2. This suggests that what we observe as gravity is an emergent property of universal acceleration, rather than a "force" as currently understood by physicists. This relentless acceleration has propelled our 3-dimensional fabric across an incredible distance. Variations in energy and material density in the early universe caused the fabric to deform in accordance with the distribution of resistant inertial values across our 3D fabric, creating a surface topography described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR). We must acknowledge the genius of GR as a sort of 4-dimensional map key, where the increased inertial property, correlated with higher energy density, essentially slows a region's progression through the time dimension, resulting in Einstein’s proposition of time dilation. Adopting our new paradigm-shifting perspective from the fourth dimension, we might even be able to rationalize some of the more perplexing phenomena in quantum physics. For example, through a thought experiment, consider wave-particle duality. If quantum particles, like electrons, were composed of photon-like energy packets moving in a stable 4D loop and interacting with our quantum field theory (QFT)-like fabric, they could exhibit properties of both waves and particles, as observed in the double-slit experiment. Furthermore, superposition could be explained by these energy packets, which compose quantum particles, being at some point along their paths outside of our observable 3D space as they traverse their 4D paths. The measurement problem would then transform into a challenge to learn or develop a four-dimensional calculus to predict and measure quantum particle propagation. The natural frequency or vibration of every bit of matter could be linked to these stable 4D loops, with energy packets racing around their track, piercing through our 3D fabric's quantum field with each lap, thereby providing the mechanistic driver of particle frequency and vibration. Other Elusive phenomena such as quantum entanglement could be interpreted as interactions between these energy packets along their paths in 4D space. On the other end of the size scale, this hypothesis allows us to speculate about the nature of dark matter. It suggests that dark matter could be nothing more than residual warping of our 3D fabric caused by mass that has moved through the region at some point. The fabric of space wouldn't revert to its original state once the mass has passed because the acceleration has remained constant. This could explain why so-called “dark matter” is found in large quantities around galaxies and other large-scale structures; the abundance of material within these regions has caused deformations in our 3D fabric, akin to ruts on a well-trodden path. Thus, there's no need to invoke the existence of some mysterious and unobservable matter; it's simply excessive and residual warping of our fabric. Finally, if this explanation were true, it would provide a method to test this hypothesis for validity, as we could envisage the prospect of measuring the latent effects of mass on our fabric. A summary of my hypothesis would not be complete without explaining the observed phenomenon of Dark Energy, from which this hypothesis derives its name. Physicists estimate that dark energy constitutes approximately 69% of the universe, a fact that inspired the title of this hypothesis. The "Time Force" is what I propose as the fourth-dimensional energetic pressure, enveloped by our 3D fabric, creating a giant expanding hypersphere on whose surface we reside. The Time Force represents the remnants from the initial cause that propels us on this journey through time. As energy seeks equilibrium, entropy can be reinterpreted as a restorative phenomenon, challenging the current understanding where order dissolves into disorder. Instead, entropy is viewed as a tendency for energy to pursue balance and uniformity, in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. In short, I've proposed a speculative, yet undeniably intriguing, explanation for time, gravity, time dilation, dark energy, dark matter, quantum entanglement, superposition, entropy, and wave-particle duality. This is achieved through a single postulate-that the fourth "time dimension is spatial"-and the idea that all observable phenomena manifest from this first cause, grounded in the second law of thermodynamics, all within the confines of this KZbin comment.

[@JonhnyWalker]

12:58 I kind of love that the particle fighter is the hunter from Bloodborne

[@fuckYTIDontWantToUseMyRealName]

"now that's what I call physics" had me rolling

[@edugomezf]

Dark mattter physicists: Let's explain this by adding new particles that have a related field. MOND physicists: Let's explain this by adding new fields that have a related particle.

[@TheGuyCalledX]

Do new fields need a related particle though?

[@edugomezf]

@@TheGuyCalledX In quantum field theory excitations of a field at a given frequency come in set units (quanta) and when these quanta appear to be spatially localized they can be seen as particles. I think it happens for every field except maybe gravity, but if there's a valid theory of quantum gravity there will also be a graviton.

[@dan7291able]

@@TheGuyCalledX Whole point of quantum fields IS the fact it has a related particle hehe

[@trevorh6438]

SuspiciousObservers: it was electromagnetism and plasma dynamics all along.

[@bartobarto3160]

I am 29 years old and began to have interest in physics and I feel unhappy because I do law and maybe physics is my destiny. But I am still so bad at math that I can't read symbols on equations like they are distracting me and confuse me. Yes i managed somehow through school but only by imagination and making it feel right or just practicing but always each step learned why I do that. But now I can't solve equations and how could I do physics and leave law at almost 30 years old. Why Am I telling you this? Because I was always a kid with lots of imagination. And what I saw now what Einstein found out I had exactly this in my mind why objects move through space around other objects. I even had this imagination that objects fall down with elasticity to break trough the "atmosphere" of space what I think is dark matter over all. My English is not native but I will try to explain. The universe is flat plat and it's material is dark matter with dark energy. there are other universe and each of them are below the other. This flat universe is elastic. So if something is in it, it falls constantly down. It stretches the universe. Here comes the clue: If the objects falls down and sinks into the abyss of universe it also stretches into the other below universe flat plat. And it sinks and sinks for like trillion and more years. And Then it breaks and all the content from universe 1 comprehends into a small drop which contains all essence of the universe with all information and it drips into the next flat universe plat causing the big bang which is not Bang or explosion, it's just this small drop intrudes in a new blank universe plat causing to enhance and activate the universe plat and the information in the small blob (like a tear which falls from you eyes) causing to begin processes which led to almost same creation and developing of past universe. If you ask why? I can explain too. The universe which I think is flat and already a system in itself. It's content is blank because nothing introduded so far. But his material is pure dark energy fields and dark matter which have properties. Properties like a straight system of almost eternity small points of energy fields which wait content to drop into the playing field to activate and work. The universe and is small particles are all connected like you pixels on the screen. Exactly that's how I would describe it. The universe and is particles are like the pixels of your screen. And each pixel is a worker and creator. It only waits for orders and commands. The dark matter and energy is the fuel for all these pixels to work and create all together simultaneously something which you see as objects and atmosphere. And when this drop comes into the next universe it's like sperm giving life and content to a blank clear system. Then everything will arrange in billion or trillion years and will develop with trial and error a perfect system because each pixel is working while each pixel always connects and communicates with each other pixel and all pixel together in the whole universe as an overall super entity pixel. Like I sad I see this for the first time but I always thought that we are sinking and falling. And that's why we think we expand but in reality we only fall constantly down and stretch the universe which is elastic. Causing to stretch many other universe flat plates under our universe to stretch. Think of a elastic something gathered above the same elastic thing. If you put a heavy weight on top all level of the elastic thing will fall stretch down and object will fall. But then there is a limit were the first on top universe rip apart and all content information of this universe will comprehend back into a single drop which will now fall down and enter a new under neath universe causing to give it live with the informations from the old universe how it is gonna have to work and the pixels which activate because they get information and the dark matter fuelling the dark emergy to work and giving them maybe somehow of consciousness because every pixel like I sad is communicating each mili second (in reality it is real life and it can't be described with a number because it's love without a single delay) and each pixel of full knowledge of each other pixel which is trillions of lightyear away and connected to the whole system as a whole. We are falling not expending! And that is why light is always everywhere and for as humans always faster than everything. Because it's everywhere 100% of the universe. It's like the wave in a ocean. If you see the wave as the light, nothing can in this ocean faster than the waves therfore our light. The light in our universe exists from the energy exchange and interactions from all the pixels causing waves which work and the dark energy giving them fuel to work and energyze. That's why it is so fast because it was always everywhere. It's like the ocean contains water and if we humans thought that water=light, we would measure the speed of the water and see that it's faster than anything else when in reality it is not fast its just everywhere before now and after. And what I forgot each pixel knows over time how to work due the information of the past universe and each pixel will give each atom and particle orders how to work and react and how to behave. Like a switch from a DNA which can't turn on our off. Every little pixel in the universe has orders and properties and behaves like he has too. So basically the future is always written when we live in the present. The present is the future and there is no time like we humans invented. It's just we are living life and simultaneously with the universe. And I think if some of pixels get failures and malfunction that's why sometimes we get sick or other accidents happen because some particles failed or got desynchronized and can't connect live without a delay with the other particles in the universe. I don't know what how I do it but sometimes I can see future events to occur like a soccer game where I know that a team will wijj exactly 5:1 or will winn first halt 3:1 or the bar team will win 2:0 and so on or know which persons I will see next in the next day Whig I didn't see in years. and other stuff. Call me autistic and hyper sensitive that might be the case. Some friend in school told me in a game where we should say stuff about others and guess who that is that I am a mysterious guy. I sometimes get answers from someone else or wish something to happen and it happens and in the past I was scared because strange things happened and occurred like I wished or imagined. But i got used to it. A couple of month before I asked this strange power that he has to show me what it is all about and what we have to do as humans and what's our goal. The first 2 nights no answer but than on the third night he answered me in my dream and took my hand and showed me what is all about. In summary if you die you will exist as a conscious of many particles flying around and seeing everything oj earth but you can't interact. You also can't gather knowledge. You only can take everything you gatherer as a human and all your knowledge and education will stay fixed and continue on you new entity beeing which consists of many particles like a invisible cloud connected together. I REPEAT EVERYTHING YOU DO TILL YOUR LIFE WILL the only thing you can't take with you after death. That's what he shower me. The key and goals of human existing is to gather knowledge and if you for the energy of your consciousness, brain and thoughts is not vanished. It will live in the particles which connect and put everything together and you living on and watching. The bad part is her I REPEAT you stay this way. You are physically trapped and mentally trapped. You can't access new knowledge or make new memory's or train you capacity or whatever You stay as an observer which can think but can't do nothing. He showed me that a small exception exists. If you connect to the universe it itself in its whole you can make interactions like doing wind blows so people in a room maybe think there is someone there. I am not crazy I just know that I am right like Einstein was. I was always different kid somehow and I always solve riddles with intuition and always are right. If the teacher ask a difficult question on exams and all 20 in the class room sad B, I sad it's Z-G=P and I was right. I always am Right. It's just I can feel it I can sense it. Pls somebody help to solve this I can't do math that's my problem. It's somehow the universe wants me to only imagine it and not calculating it because something bad would happen because I would use it wrong if feel it. But Mark this in order to get out of the universe when we solve our universe we have to increase the life of humans. Because that's what is limiting us because people can't collect knowledge because everything gets more complicated and more content. The very best needs 40 years to get to the point where They understand Einstein and then are too old with 60 years. We have to increase human life to 150-240 years in order to use the knowledge and capacity of our very best. And by doing so normal people would also have more time to be more educated and maybe then useful because of intrinsic motivation to help us by working for the goal of understanding universe. More people would feel encouraged to learn math and explore the universe.

[@jadersanctem]

"Now that what I call physics" got me

[@joelt2002]

Good video. Many just assume Dark Matter is a real thing, instead of grasping it's a fudge factor little better than Aether was to explain the motion of planetary bodies and how light propagates through space.

[@dsm5d723]

The ether is a clumsy way of describing the way everything is connected by dielectric and magnetic fields, but way better than relativity. Dark matter is a fantasy of math, and an expensive one to have.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Kind of hard to just not have dark matter and have conservation of energy though, as it would mean inconsistent forces across space acting on the same amount of matter. I mean the universe (that we see) does not have conservation of energy anyway due to dark energy, but all of our physics is based on conservation laws. A lot of conservation laws.

[@dsm5d723]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana The entire "story" of physics depends on heat death and the inevitable rarefaction of all matter. It is a religion. Looking at metaphysics helped me to see the logical inconsistencies. The non-relativity approaches to cosmology are more rational, but actually harder to really understand. The Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmology of Suspicious0bservers only make sense if you can see the magnetic and electrical connection between planets and stars, not the so-called gravitational connection. The bad news is that there is a shift in the magnetic field of earth coming soon. "Our" physics is built on denying how helpless we are when things reset on earth, but nobody denies that the poles have shifted many times in the past.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

@@dsm5d723 Since magnetism decreases with distance away, this force would have to be its own thing. Also why on Earth would it care about stars and planets? Surely it should consider Black Holes and Neutron Stars, the heaviest and densest things the most in order not to be incredibly arbitary.

[@dsm5d723]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana People really do not understand magnetism completely. The same principles apply at different energy levels to the "massive" things. Rotating magnetic fields exert "force" on dielectric fields. The geometric relationship between dynamic magnetic and dielectric fields makes up the phenomenon we call gravity. Space has no properties, as Tesla said, the matter in space has properties or attributes more correctly. That means that the 4th phase of matter, plasma, is erroneous, because any electrical discharge in space IS a gas conducting electrical energy. Look into Plasma Cosmology and what they have to say about Dark Matter being complete nonsense. The galactic current sheet is coming, and with it the dusty plasma that cause the sun to micro nova and ruin all the plans of mankind.

[@seanhenderson5996]

Just spit balling here, but in addition to "there's more matter than we can see" and "gravity works different sometimes" shouldn't there be a third possibility that red/blue shifting doesn't always work the way we think it does seeing as that's what's giving us the seemingly wrong velocities?

[@michaelchildish]

How about, the universe is bigger than the observable by far, and it's flying apart faster than gravity can hold it together... for now, and might well rebound into The Big Crunch and another Big Bang, as Black Holes grow larger and seemingly exponentially more powerful by my limited understanding?

[@JohnDlugosz]

I'm sure that's a box they check off when brainstorming, but there's just no way. Besides the different speed seen on the two edges of a spinning body, there are bodies that are wholly moving towards or away from us. If shifting were amplified somehow when the relative velocity is small, we would see the effect on other motion in the same speed range.

[@shmootube5000]

I like the idea, i would also love it if we found out all this photon particle/wave duality is bullshit because that really seems like us using two different wrong answers to try to make a right answer.

[@SpeakerWiggin49]

@@shmootube5000 That would be fascinating, but anyone who tells you they understand the quantum wave nature of an uncollapsed photon doesn't understand the meaning of math and theory used to understand quantum mechanics.

[@flametitan100]

@@shmootube5000 Unfortunately, all of the attempts to show that it's not have come up with... "OK it's doing weird things that currently only make sense in this model." It's entirely possible that Dark Matter is another Vulcan situation, but we still need a model that works perfectly with all observable cases, *and* which can predict new results accurately, which MOND hasn't quite gotten to prove itself on yet, to my understanding.

[@garethdean6382]

Interesting. We have observed galaxies that seem to be >99% dark matter as well as a few that seem to lack it entirely. Does the new MOND explain these, or only spiral galaxies?

[@ObjectsInMotion]

Only spiral at the moment!

[@cemented508]

It does if you make a up a new quirk just for that one!

[@annoloki]

I think claims of galaxies completely lacking dark matter were later withdrawn upon further observation, but I don't know if there are other claims that are still standing.

[@WhitefirePL]

Well... but you may think it's better to have a few small mysteries rather than one huge misunderstanding about everything in the universe :)

[@cryptolicious3738]

@@annoloki check out dr sabine hossenfelders video from a few weeks ago. she showed the best answer & research

[@DDogsK]

I wonder, is it possible that gravity affects space in such a way that it weakens space over time? If the gravitational effect becomes stronger as space becomes weaker, wouldn't that remove the need for dark matter?

[@gregdemeterband]

Laws of Dynamics into play? Great Insight... Keep it up...You are definitely on to something nobody even thought to consider; unless an entirely NEW LAW of Physics unknown as of yet, is in play?

[@gregdemeterband]

Yes, if Space can be Torn, then why not?

[@rakino4418]

What do you mean by "weakens"

[@mysweetsunday6861]

Very interesting! But what if the dark matter and the fermions repeal themselves? The dark matter would around the galaxies, shaping them from the outside and acting like a confinement field making them accelerate. So if dark and regular matter repeal each other, we can't them inside the galaxies, but outside... Just an idea

[@fernandohood5542]

The level of math skill required for these theories (tensors, fields) is awesome.

[@paulwalsh2344]

Awesome... and utterly incomprehensible to me LOL. I get the "big picture" concepts of cosmology but completely lack the mathematical skill to fundamentally explain them.

[@aligator7181]

Awesome and altogether a pile of nonsense

[@afterSt0rm]

Just in time for my break!

[@Breakemoff2]

And my nap 😂 🪐 ⭐️

[@borttorbbq2556]

Same basically

[@98f5]

I was thinking about this the other day. what an interesting topic.

[@sheltonplamondon7275]

First of all, thank you for the outstanding work on this and other Space Time videos. I tend to agree with the idea of MOND - making adjustments to the tensors, but it is thus far, missing a reason and perhaps a term or two on a couple of key equations. Everything that we observe about gravity is but a reflection of the curvature of spacetime. We seem to be stuck on the idea that mass is the only thing that can curve spacetime, and only in one direction. What if energy also curves spacetime, but in the opposite direction. As with mass, it would require high density energy to produce a noticeable effect; something you might see in the cores of planets and stars. This would mean that our observations are really a result of the combination of the multiple overlaid curvatures. This would change nothing locally, as Newtonian gravity would still apply. This could cause a complete recalibration of all of our previous stellar/galactic observations and would be difficult work, as 'gravity' would then become something of a ratio of energy density to mass density. This could mean that different galaxies or areas of the universe could have different effective 'gravity', or is there a temporal trajectory to the observed intensity of 'gravity'? At a minimum it could produce far greater calculated variability in spacetime curvature - rather than a vast flat plain with an occasional dip. As a thought experiment, I think the possibilities are very exciting; gravitational waves, exploding black holes, improved reasoning for numerous stellar types, etc. I do not have the math chops to work this idea, perhaps someone else does? Or perhaps it's just a silly thought from a wanabee citizen scientist.

[@jamiemascola6614]

I happen to like your postulates. Much like it took Maxwell and Faraday to figure out the relationship of the 3-fold nature of unified electromagnetism, we're getting there with gravity. And when we do, a lot of canonical physics theories will just have to be re-evaluated to conform. As Edward Albee once wrote: "Sometimes one must travel backwards a great distance in order to move forward a very short distance correctly." A great number of individuals in the world of theoretical physics education need to embrace this philosophy towards longstanding conventions that are firmly understood to be incorrect and/or incomplete. And rather than wasting a tremendous amount of effort in the rationalization of the lie, to spend an equal effort towards ascertainment of the truth!

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Actually, we already know how energy curves spacetime. Thus dark maybe matter would have to be caused by something that is neither energy nor matter.

[@sheltonplamondon7275]

Jamie Mascola and Formation 13 - thank you for your kind engagement. In my effort to not write a book, I have miscommunicated. I will try to clarify. I misused the word energy. What I am really thinking about is mass (rest mass) versus massless, or more specifically photons. When I mention 'energy density', I am thinking photon density. I am suggesting that perhaps massless has an equal and opposite spacetime curvature effect as mass. What we observe and measure is the consequence of both of these effects, attributing the entirety as a single effect of mass. Problem is that massless won't sit still. It's really hard to build a pile of photons in the lab and isolate and measure their effects - they keep moving. (Intended to be humorous) Additionally I am suggesting the possibility that the effect of mass or massless on spacetime may not be a constant. I believe it is probably a constant through out the universe at any one time, but may not be a constant over time. All of our cosmic observations are old, as in thousands, millions, and billions of years old, and we are assuming we can reliably compare those to current day observations near Sol/Earth. Just things to think about.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

@@sheltonplamondon7275 An opposite spacetime curvature would just make the problem worse as it would repeal things. If it had "normal" mass it would cause us to overestimate the relatively well-lit solar system, which would actually require more dark matter.

[@sheltonplamondon7275]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I understand your point. I would agree that it makes things more complicated. What you say is true if we assume an even distribution of mass and massless. Perhaps it is not evenly distributed. To be specific, different stars, of similar size, and brightness (visible spectra), but not age, have different mass and produce different levels of massless (photons). I think it is true that the fusion of two hydrogen atoms produces different spectra and amounts than the fusion of two helium atoms, etc. Perhaps different generations of stars produce mass and massless distribution curves that are different as well. And of course there are stars of every size that burn hot or cold and fast or slow. The gravitational effect of a single star would be dependent on the ratio of mass to massless and change over time based on the initial building elements and the burn rate. The outer stars in a spiral galaxy tend to be younger than the inner stars. This all suggests that there could be significant 'gravitational' contours within a galaxy. This could be compounded when we are observing galaxies from billions of years ago, full of older generation stars (meaning we don't have anything local to compare). I think it is conceivable, with the use of massless, that we can come up with a contour scheme that would allow the outer stars of a galaxy to move faster, without the need for imaginary mass. This may also explain why some galaxies do not require imaginary mass to work. A different thought approach to your point - We observe a point of light far, far away. Based on it's brightness and spectra we categorize it as the same as Sol. So, we say it has the same mass as Sol (+ or -). What if that point of light produces far less non visible spectra photons (massless)? It would produce more 'gravity'. It would be as if we suddenly found more mass. We wouldn't be changing anything, except for our understanding.

[@VoodooD0g]

Hey Matt, despite corona, working from home and possible lots of other problems, the quality of your videos never worsened. I really appreciate the effort you're putting into this and thank your in the name of all ventre... humans watching this. Huge kudos to you, sir!

[@sicfxmusic]

"All scientists are wrong" - James Webb Telescope, soon, maybe

[@danieljensen2626]

JWST will probably show some people they're wrong about how stars form/evolve, but I don't think it'll tell us anything about dark matter.

[@alexeypolevoybass]

And that's the most fascinating thing about science. A single discovery can change a lot in our understanding of the Universe.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

Well it woild be fun if something was discovered that forced a return to the drawing board for something

[@allankolenovsky7028]

Ahh, the James Webb telescope. On track to be the longest running piece of vaporware. Every image I have ever seen of it has been of it nestled in its cradle in the production facility, surrounded by engineers who bask in its beauty but appear to be too damned afraid to actually finish the damned thing and get it off the ground. Until its in space and doing its job, its just a hunk of metal and plastic.

[@Perririri]

Normie

[@markdeffebach8112]

As always, our mathematical models are always at best models that approximate reality. Its like using a linear approximation because its good enough, until it isn't. I look forward to an equation for the speed of light (EMR).

[@poe12]

C = sqrt (e/m) 😆

[@shadans.lashkari5270]

As a physic graduate from were to start studying or understanding RelMOND because I feel totally lost and not understanding any thing and all the different equations I see in papers..till I saw this video.. thank you

[@zmckinley]

I’m a Dr of international business and I don’t have any expertise in astrophysics, but your videos are so enjoyable and well-made that I cannot get enough! I watch your videos every single night, and my curiosity about our universe has grown continuously. Thank you for all your work making these!!

[@Thomas.Wright]

This channel needs more comments like these, and fewer from flerfers, thunderdolts, and tinfoil-hatters.

[@zmckinley]

@Greg Jacques Haha! This is great -- thanks for sharing. I'm sure I will use this thought-provoking simile myself at some point.

[@theemissary1313]

Seems that we only have the middle part of the story of gravity. We're missing the beginning with the theory of quantum gravity, and the ending with an explanation of dark matter.

[@muntee33]

We are so incorrect with our fundamentals that the equations only give usuable results within a narrow band of nature's spectrum. Outside this band, our inaccurate/incorrect mathematics produces results with no usuable degree of accuracy. That's where 'discoveries' at either far ends of the perceivable spectrum, such as 'superposition' through to 'dark matter' come from. Nature isn't constrained under a factor 10 mathematical principle all orders of magnitude. For the vast spectrum of reality, it could well function under a factor 9 mathematical principle and each individual 'component' or unit is it actually an individual unit but instead, has various degrees of overlapping manifestation. Ie; 1+1 does NOT = 2. 1+1=1.61....... And nature does not move from point A to B in a unidirectional and radial vector. It moves from A to B/-B simultaneously and in a helical spiral 'vector' and it does not reach out equidistantly to B/-B but instead reaches a fractional value of -B with respect to B. We are ants proclaiming to know the entire planet, yet all we really know is the relatively, vanishingly small section of ground our colony exists within, assuming the ENTIRE planet has the same 'universal' 'laws' we perceive, observe, detect, measure and reference. The level of ignorance, arrogance, audacity and stupidity in such a beliefs is why no intelligent interstellar lifeforms allow us to detect them. We are a species in it's young infancy and are yet to prove itself as an acceptable and adequate level of cognisant/sentient intelligence to warrant accepting into the local community. We also cannot be helped until we reach a certain point on our own and prove ourselves as being worthy of such a profound progression. And could you blame any life form for not making contact as yet. Just look at the state of our 'civil society' we are the level of an aggressive, parasitic virus. And we will be left to die out unless we reconfigure the entire systemic principles of society. Lest we be regarded forever more as a dangerous cancer of a species that must be left to be extinguished by the next cyclic cataclysm, should we not progress beyond our immoral and destructive collective existence. And to alter the course into the future, we must FULLY understand the reality of the course we have taken to date. From 12,000BCE (and beyond)

[@qzbnyv]

@@muntee33 ^ Hey look everyone. I’ve found the guy that thankfully got replaced by Don Cheadle in all of the MCU movies.

[@ThePowerLover]

@@muntee33 This!

[@RedRocket4000]

and like the poor term dark matter the term quantum gravity is misleading as there might not be a separate quantum part of gravity and gravity might not be quantifiable. I refer to those like the MOND people with dark matter are trying to get quantum mechanics to work without there being an actual force of gravity at the quantum level. In other words at the quantum level spacetime curvature still determines the behavior at the quantum level and there will be no combined forces at moments after the Big Bang because gravity is not a force in that way as gravity is not a thing in Relativity it just a measurement of Space/time curvature.

[@RedRocket4000]

@@muntee33 Use Sapient not sentient to be clearer. Sapient as in Wise (high level abstract thinking that right now only the human brain seams to have the structures to do) is what separates us from the other animals. Some dorks way back started using Sentient as in feeling being with animals not having feelings which is false. And those dorks must have never been around animals. Not understanding let alone agreeing with the rest except Alien advanced probably would chose not to interact with a species as it developed until it actually was close to overcoming the light speed barrier.

[@heartpath1]

Love the channel. Audio sounds like it was recorded in a laundry room.

[@mydrynphillippe7530]

There’s a problem in quantum that argues for dark matter, and that is wormholes. This can be seen at the very small and very large with entanglement. According to some recent theories entanglement and wormholes are the same. It is known that quasars can be entangled just as particles can be, and black holes are commonly believed to be wormholes. Thing is wormholes need a balance of mass to negative mass to form. It pretty likely then that there must be a source of negative mass. By some theories negative mass has many of the same properties as dark matter and thereby a candidate. This seems to lead to a conflict with MOND.

[@NameUserOf]

There is nothing that can be seen when it comes down to quantum and certainly nothing when it comes to wormholes. Wormholes have purely mathematical origins and are simply a fantasy. "It is known that quasars can be entangled just as particles can be" Known by whom, where is the evidence of this knowledge?

[@dan7291able]

One of the best episodes i've ever seen on this channel easily (and ive seen loads), thanks for this Matt!

[@chingobling5063]

Gravity: an area we should definitely be focusing on studying more. I believe it could unlock many great technologies if we could harness more of its power.

[@joemendyk9994]

Or, we could slow down and get our sh*t together before we disappear and can't solve anything.....

[@lastword8783]

@@joemendyk9994 why are those two things mutually exclusive?

[@user-nu2it6kf2m]

@@joemendyk9994 ???

[@pauladamson9459]

I think this Tully-Fisher relation supports my model of gravity. I will keep this in mind, as I work on it. Thanks.

[@stanleymines]

Hey Matt O'Dowd! I was wondering if I could get some or all of the sources/works cited for the topics you discussed in this video, and/or further readings. Thanks!

[@pkwithmeplease]

Whats funny is yourll never get it from this channel its just used to push whatever infomation they want you to know.

[@David_Kelly_SF]

Great video, thanks for all hard work that goes into these.

[@tutekohe1361]

The increasingly complex caveats that go with Mond reminds me of the unfeasibly tangled explanations around String Theory.

[@Meilk27]

What do you mean? You think it's a bunch of word salad and nonsense that people are trying to explain to others while not understanding it themselves

[@mihneabudei44]

It’s not more farfetched than daek matter tbh. An invisible particle matching nothing in the known universe whose quantities and properties we can infer based on which values suit the observations best :p They’re all farfetched, that’s the point we’ve gotten to :D

[@emp2687bb]

I have a theory about this. I've been thinking about how well we understand gravity for some time. Our current understanding of gravity is The strength is reversely proportional to square of distance. This makes sense as we think of gravity as particle waves. The particle waves spread out over an area (dilute themselves) that is proportional to the radius squared as simple geometry states. However, Einstein said that the gravity alters space, stretching it towards itself. Three possibilities arise: 1. As we examine a sphere, the area of the sphere should be 4*pi*(r^2) but our radius is stretched by gravity and so the area is actually < 4*pi*(r^2). Perhaps the stretching itself is proportional to r. It could mean that the gravity is reversely proportional to r and not r^2. This may actually result in gravity being too strong. Therefore a second possibility below. 2. The gravity is composed of 2 component forces. One force obeys the rules of ideal space and is proportional to 1/(r^2). The second force is affected by space stretch and is proportional to 1/r. The two together combine to produce the full gravitational force. This sounds plausible to me. 3. Rather than gravity having 2 components, it actually has an infinite number of components that stretch between 1/r and 1/r^2. The full gravity is then an integral of all of them combined. I think this would be elegant from a mathematics perspective but i am not understanding how this would actually work. Why would the gravitational force stretch out that way? I have a feeling that 2&3 also have to do with time. What if gravity travels time? Perhaps the 2 components are acting as past space that was not stretched by gravity and present/future space that is stretched by gravity. This would also provide some explanation to #3 if the stretching was not instant but took time, then the integral would be adding up the space as it was changing.

[@poisenbery]

Dark matter seems to be something akin to mass defect in atomic physics. When you combine the sums of the masses of nucleons in a nucleus, you get less than the total weight of the nucleus itself. That missing mass is known as "mass defect" Galaxies seem to operate under a similar principal.

[@floreaciprian9742]

Always happy to find a notification from PBS Space Time. Now its time to watch the video twice to properly undestand what you're talking about. Thank you

[@lomiification]

Another alternative: both MOND and dark matter Mind you, the 20% leftover dark matter is more reasonable for visible, but unlit matter

[@j.pershing2197]

Uncharged plasma is dark matter. Nebulas are pockets of plasma with a positive charge. This can create planets and stars. Electromagnetism is the key.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@j.pershing2197 "Electric Universe" scam alert!

[@firstaidsack]

@@j.pershing2197 Any quantitative predictions that can be tested?

[@rakninja]

@@j.pershing2197 found the guy who doesent know what a plasma is.

[@j.pershing2197]

@@rakninja Watch yourself. Ninja. Go watch cartoons.

[@babaayman9658]

KZbin is starting to get on my nerves. 8 times now in 4 days, I step away a moment and this episode is playing.

[@TheDrewjustforyou]

Mond just got a pretty large boost from Gaia binary star observations. Things that accelerate very slowly somehow do so very efficiently, like 40% more efficiently than they should.

[@protocol6]

Is it possible that the bullet cluster is evidence of a gravitational equivalent to a bow wave? Like the kind that forms in front of a boat moving on the surface of a lake or an aircraft moving through air. Such a wave continues on if the boat or plane abruptly decelerates. It would mean space-time itself has a sort of momentum that can separate from the object moving through it. It might also suggest an exceedingly small but non-zero viscosity. Obviously you have such a triangular shock front in the gas clouds in the bullet cluster as well but that gas certainly has a higher viscosity than space-time so the two waves should separate with the gas shock front trailing further and further behind over time. Maybe try an experiment with two immiscible fluids of very different viscosities like oil and water. Drag something rapidly through both and watch what happens when you stop. There should be some interaction between them as there would be with stacked fluids but it may not be perfectly analagous--particularly as gasses and liquids behave differently.

[@Rhysman30]

I wont pretend I know anything. But seeing as how gravitational waves are indeed a thing, a cosmological bow wave effect doesn't seem insane.

[@setcheck67]

@@Rhysman30 Insane to believe that happens? No. Long lived? That's the insane part. The universe does not react well to gravitational ripples and immediately corrects it. This is why even with the most amazing events like 2 neutron stars colliding the gravity ripple is so fast that it's only detectable with lasers. What we're seeing is definitely matter being concentrated in high gravity zones that just shouldn't exist.

[@elpak]

I'd love an episode about Mach's principle and Newton's bucket experiment, related to the existence or not of an absolute reference frame for rotation. We know that any freely floating mass undergoing inertial linear motion can be taken as an equally valid reference system to any other, yet for a freely floating rotating mass (still with no external forces acting on it) you cannot take its rotating frame as an equally valid reference system to any other (you need to add fictitious forces to match observations unless you are in the "absolute reference" zero rotation frame). I find it so elegant and pleasant to see how the principle of relativity perfectly applies to linear motion, with no absolute reference frame needed, and yet find it so inelegant and ugly how the principle of relativity doesn't apply well to rotational motion, always needing an absolute reference frame of zero rotation. Why should there be an absolute reference frame at all? I have the secret hope that, one day, a modified gravity could "fix" galaxy rotations, lensing, etc. AND also show a perfect relativity principle for rotations with no absolute reference rotation frame.

[@eugenechun4140]

I think that the object of density occupying and in motion in an environment of density will determine the time frame according to the density of the environment...as the enviornment of density is altered, so too are the time frames.

[@harleygerken747]

@12:28 I was in the other room and had to run in and rewind it because I thought our boy just said "Ballbuster".

[@MrChancebozey]

"What If Our Understanding of Gravity Is Wrong?" Most likely yes. Wich is why we should always keep a healthy dose of skepticism in the back of our minds and not fall prey to our own ego and self importance. Great vid and content :)

[@crawdad9696]

Incomplete...yes. Wrong? Doubtful.

[@j.pershing2197]

Gravity is a dipole force acting on a flat plane. Electromagnetism creates this field and it exists within counter rotating bands of magnetism. The sun is attached to the planets via birkeland currents because the sun is not nuclear in nature but more akin to a Faraday motor receiving its power from the galaxy via universe. The sun captured to systems. The jupiter and later the saturnian system. The planets were in semi stable orbits for a long time but reacted with each other and the sun physically changing earths environment. The sun forced the planets to their current orbits to achieve electrical equilibrium with their new environment. Saturn went nova from this within human history. Our 02 molecules only match the others found in the rings of Saturn. The planets were the gods for a long time. Pay attention to the symbols of ancient man. Look up "squatter man" just to see how many cultures knew this image and yet this image is a plasma feature easily produced in a lab. Its so simple to build hydrogen reactors for power but the large energy companies wont allow that. The first few men that did this died quite mysteriously. Good luck out there but the truth wont be found in main stream science. E=MC² is wrong. Its fails the further from our local star one gets. Its all electric as Tesla said.

[@kingnekogon]

@@j.pershing2197 What kind of quackery is this?

[@j.pershing2197]

@@kingnekogon The quackery is what you see every day when youve a mind to look for it. Did you know Einstein wasnt satisfied with his work at the end of his life? Quackery isnt a nice thing to say. Why not ask a real question?

[@pierrecurie]

@@crawdad9696 This isn't math, where incomplete means something very different. The fact that GR & QFT don't play nicely together means that 1 or both are wrong. Doesn't mean either is useless.

[@blackcid]

"But in order to be taken seriously, a new hypothesis like MOND needs to do a few things" String theory also fails, and it has been taken seriously during decades.

[@trevorh6438]

Plasma dynamics and electromagnetism succeeds but very few want to consider it seriously.

[@SampsonAndBeasley]

@@trevorh6438 indeed, it’s so sad 😞

[@Xexorian]

@@trevorh6438 wdym? Consider it in what way?

[@trevorh6438]

@@Xexorian as the main theory for cosmic physics.

[@ayushsharma8804]

@@trevorh6438 it dose'nt, at all

[@MahmoudMaguid]

The animation and this host really makes this channel interesting.

[@ColinMacKenzieRobots]

I get that space-time curvature is defined by a tensor. It's so weird that the coordinate space itself is not normal at right angles (RA) but I got it. So gravity in this case is not a fundamental force but just a product of our RA observation of a curved space that we can't directly perceive. For example, an orbit is actually a straight line in curved space-time but our mind relates everything in Euclidian cartesian space so we see orbits as circular since we don't naturally see space-time curvature any more than we see the varying winds in the sky. Wouldn't that be something though, to see the feather's path in Forest Gump not as random but as a straight line through time following the wind vectors as defined by a varying tensor field. If we could see the wind, we'd see the feather travels a straight line.

[@earthexpanded]

When it comes to galaxy rotation curves, it is important to recognize that we use basic trigonometry to determine a given location's radial distance outward from the center of a galaxy. What this does is it assumes the "actual distance per observed distance" is equal across the diameter of a galaxy. The reality is, the center of a galaxy literally hides a vast amount of distance in a manner where the stars near the apparent center of a galaxy in appearance are actually much more similar in distance of separation from the center to the stars at the outer edge of the galaxy. This is because there is a hidden distance that black holes warp space in the visible light spectrum (for us viewing these systems) and literally *hide* many light years at the center of galaxies. If we do not account for this, the curves will make no sense or require a new "thing" (dark matter).

[@TangentFuture41]

I think this is like. The problem isn't that we are using incorrect formulas but that we are conceptualizing distancing incorrectly.

[@WillyDrucker]

I would hope this is already accounted for. However, why does it form a spiral? Why do the spirals clump and a void form in between?

[@earthexpanded]

@@WillyDrucker It's not accounted for. If you look at the actual studies, they literally just use basic trigonometry to determine radial distance outward. There is no discussion whatsoever of any type of actual distance compression because we are used to observed distances matching actual distances. On Earth, and in general, distance per observed distance is the same. But, in an extreme case of a black hole it may be that it actually plays a substantial role to the point where our galaxy rotation curves are too inaccurate in terms of the distances of separation and so impossible to "match" a theoretical framework when we are simply not recognizing there to be an actual distance present. Spirals are from black hole rotation in the same manner as the heliospheric current sheet of the solar system is caused by the sun's magnetic field and its rotation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet It is important to recognize that all systems function the same. We see the sun as a star because we our building blocks ("atoms") are of a *relative mass ratio* to the sun where its emissions are in our observed visible light spectrum. However, observers can be composed of any particle in the universe as their largest "building block" and the mass ratio of their particles to the observed system determines how it is seen. In this way, a galaxy can be observed as a solar system. This process allows us to see a lot of things we have yet to connect together because we separate systems. The universe has no such dividing lines. The sun could be seen as a black hole if the observer's relative building blocks are sufficiently small. And the Earth seen as a star. All things are relative in this manner. So, spirals occur in general when a system is out of equilibrium with its environment (like a hurricane or tornado), and the same is the case for objects in the cosmos. The way the spiral forms is related to its magnetic field as it spins sending spirals outward in a structured manner where gaps form between the arms. For certainty, the heliospheric current sheet is far more well understood in science than spiral arms of galaxies, and if you consider them to be the same process then you can glean a lot from the mechanics of the sun's heliospheric current sheet and apply it to your understanding of how galaxies form in the shapes they do.

[@WillyDrucker]

@@earthexpanded Interesting, I thought for sure the compression of space would have been taken into account, but if it's not then I agree the rotation curves are inaccurate. Just a thought, would magnetism play enough of a role to create spirals at those distances? Seems like more is at play. My thought is this, if you have two points of compressed space, say star A and one-light-year away star B. Wouldn't star A and B be competing for the same space? What happens to space in between each star that can't be pulled any further?

[@mm-yt8sf]

when checking to see how well mond accounts for the missing matter, i was wondering how confident are we about the accuracy of our tally of "normal" matter? i had very bad eyesight for a while so i'm used to the idea that i might not see everything even if i can see the whole scene of what's in front of me :-)

[@rakninja]

my thoughts exactly. as i recall, several times "dark" matter has been found and accounted for. small portions of it, granted. but as time goes on, we do seem to keep finding more and more of this missing matter.

[@giacomostefanoni7634]

@@rakninja mmm "found and accounted for"? Nope, not even a femtogram of it, zero, zilch. Always found an effect compatible with its presence, but that's very different, as the effect can be explained by other means

[@tonywells6990]

It is only recently that astronomers have found most, if not all, of the normal baryonic matter, hiding as hot gas between the galaxies and makes up about 50% of normal matter.

[@qsikbk1]

@@tonywells6990 it’s like humidity, you can’t always see it but you sure can feel it.

[@danieljensen2626]

We might be off by a factor of 2 or so, but not a factor of 5. 🤷‍♂️

[@yanderevenom9793]

Love the “Now That’s What I Call Physics” edits 😂🤣

[@HelloThere.....]

4:00 Well of course there is a minimum acceleration, quantum mechanics says that all energy in the universe can be divided into individual conserved and quantifiable bits of information. There is a smallest unit of both time and space, so likewise it's intuitive that there is a minimum acceleration. Nothing can ever move a distance smaller than the Planck length any time it moves.

[@b_8103]

Thanks for the explanation!