No Dark Matter? New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Dive into a groundbreaking study that challenges everything we thought we knew about the cosmos! Professor Rajendra Gupta's latest research suggests our universe might not contain dark matter after all. Using a blend of theories, this episode uncovers how the mysteries once attributed to dark matter could be explained by natural forces. Prepare to have your mind blown as we explore this paradigm shift in cosmology. Are we on the brink of rewriting our cosmic storybooks? Let's find out together!
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
01:03 The Groundbreaking Study
03:49 Rethinking the Cosmos
05:43 Beyond the Research
07:57 Outro
08:28 Enjoy
Best Telescopes for beginners:
Celestron 70mm Travel Scope
amzn.to/3jBi3yY
Celestron 114LCM Computerized Newtonian Telescope
amzn.to/3VzNUgU
Celestron - StarSense Explorer LT 80AZ
amzn.to/3jBRmds
Visit our website for up-to-the-minute updates:
www.nasaspacenews.com
Follow us
Facebook: / nasaspacenews
Twitter: / spacenewsnasa
Join this channel to get access to these perks:
/ @nasaspacenewsagency
#NSN #NASA #Astronomy - Наука та технологія
That would explain the galaxies and black holes discovered by JWST that are evolved well beyond where they should be when the universe was supposedly less than a billion years old.
Also the fact that what they claimed was a 'black hole' at galaxy centers were simply the Electromagnetic Plasma action easily duplicated in any engineering lab using basic electrical science.. the 'bar' galaxies are PERFECT visual aids. The Bar is Basic Battery Science High School Shop 101.
Yes it would.
NO - if you've actually read subsequent research rather than just watched these dumbass UA-cam videos you'd know that some of those galaxies were shown not to be galaxies at all and the distances to others were shown to have been wrongly calculated and were much closer than first thought. In correct distance calculation is a very common problem in cosmology There are questions to be answered concerning the current standard model of cosmology but the "tired light hypothesis" isn't the answer to them.
@@sandrabailey3966 If you're so sure of that then write a paper explaining your hypothesis and have it published. You will have to account for the lack of light, or any other electromagnetic radiation, coming from the central area of space that the accretion disc of plasma is rotating around, for some reason there's no stars in that region. Other things to account for is where the plasma goes as it gradually gets nearer to this large area of "black space" and of course why and how any nearby stars are being destroyed and added to the accretion disc - many other observations will need to be accounted for but apparently this will be simple - looking forward to your paper.
That's all been overhyped by these (semi/completely) pseudoscience sites like this. It's not like it's a new theory that Science hasn't thought about. C or G could change with time but we don't know for sure, and expansion fits the data very well. I agree the Big Bangers dominate but with good reasons. The other problem is there's absolutely nobody proposing a mixture of expansion and C or G changing over time, which is also a viable possibility.. It's Big Bangers vs anti-Big Bangers.
Have long been arguing that the notion of "dark matter" is just a kluge to correct for bad mathematics or assumptions. Still maintain such.
Same...you can't be exact about things that are millions and billions of light years away...only since the shift in human humility in the science sector, has there been an attack against those who question scientists and their theories. I also do not believe in human evolution. I see the plausibility in it so far as terrestrial species, but I have a hard time believing that we would wind up so incredibly far ahead of everything else evolving around us. We are different.
Einstein invented the Cosmological Constant to correct what he thought was an error in his calculations.
He later called it the worst mistake he had ever made. Scientists made the same mistake inventing Dark Matter
@@allhopeabandon7831 I was curious about evolution and read all three of Charles Darwin's books. Anyone who reads chapter 6, "Problems with the Theory" in "The Origin of the Species" cannot believe in Darwinian natural theory of evolution.
Note that his theory is a natural theory and not a scientific theory.
Dark matter is dilated mass. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
There is no singularity at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass there must be dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy.
The Emperor is wearing no dark matter.
WOW THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. GUPTA. I've been waiting so long for such a challenge to the less than satisfactory theories of dark matter and dark energy. It also supports alot of the latest observational evidence by the JWST which questions the age of the universe is far older than 13.7 billion years.
Same here. The presence of something that cannot be measured or observed has been rubbing me the wrong way since its inception being too much like religion. Even its proponents make it clear that it's nothing more than a place marker for a working hypothesis - things behaving _as if_ something were the case.
General Relativity predicts dilation not singularities. Dark matter is dilated mass. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
There is no singularity at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass there must be dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy.
Ho yes! Enfin une théorie pour remplacer des forces ou matière introuvables depuis si longtemps 😊
@@immortalsofar5314 Yes...as a person of faith, I know it when I see it...and Dr. Carroll has almost as much faith as I do, tho in a very different, observation, of an a priori explanation to our very existence...
This paper is bullshit. Its been debunked in 2023 ua-cam.com/video/BNwXcuZwLrY/v-deo.html
1:20 "Dark Matter has long been cast as one of the universe's *lead* actors" Pronounced like the metal: 'led' Great catch, guys.
That explains why you need a lead guitar to play heavy metal music.
@@paradisepipecoYeah, like the great 70s band *Lead Zeppelin*
@@mq172 I used to wonder if that Zeppelin was Led, who was leading them? Then I figured out it was probably Jimmy Page, well known for his noteworthy led guitar playing. I mean lead. Wait.... _what was the question?_
_(I understand the metronome, since timing is everything, but what are you planning to do with that feather?)_
@@mq172 Also, I apologize for being a little slow, but you see I haven't quite been myself after grabbing a quick sandwich at Subway..... and since I had a perfect fifth, I drank the whole thing thinking it would be a good subtonic. I intended to augment my mood, but in the end, I was diminished.
Also, having misplaced my eyeglasses, I had to take great care as I approached the darkened bandstand to avoid an accidental half step, lest I tip over and be flat; being unable to see sharp. At that point, I realized I would never be a comedian or a musician, so I figured I better stick to playing drums.
But then my girlfriend said I couldn't crash at her place anymore, so I grabbed my high hat, and headed on down the road...... reminding me of how mean this world can be, with all the random sax and violins.....
Seeing four cosmologists debating dark matter at 5:50 while wearing white coats and safety glasses made me LOL. Other than that, I love the channel.
using such visuals is kind of like the videographer's equivalent of putting icons on road signs
a communicative short hand
i thought the same thing.
They're not cosmologists, that's just stock video.
Dark matter is just a theory, or more correctly a hypothesis.
It's a big failure in astrophysics that dark matter is often discussed as if it exists.
Dark matter was proposed in order to account for observations of some galaxies , but not all.
There is a clear reason why some galaxies have predictable star rotation rates. General Relativity predicts dilation not singularities. Dark matter is dilated mass. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
There is no singularity at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass there must be dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy.
Not _some_ galaxies, almost ALL galaxies ever observed. There are VERY few galaxies observed to have the correct angular momentum for the amount of matter which can be seen.
Like this theory of relativity is also a theory.
But many of riding still.
@@lbalaji8137 A theory is supported by Evidence & is more concrete than a hypothesis. Hypothesis is the assumption of how it works based on observations & that we are actively trying to prove or disprove whilst a theory has been proved by something but still may be wrong if we have made a mistake & often is ever changing.
fascinating stuff , definitely going to read his research paper even though I probably won't understand 3/4 of it lol
Like me watching Anton Petrov. I'm usually lost after a few minutes but I still watch. 😄
Could be sensational news in due course, all credit to Prof. Gupta and team. Unfortunately this video is verbose and repetitive. "Padded out" also comes to mind.
a lot of words without actual information repeated over an over again.
I would have liked to hear more information about the theory and findings and less repetition. It was very disappointing. This video really told us nothing.
It feels like it was made by AI
Many thanks for your reply. You may well be right. I hadn't thought of AI. How things are changing!@@Walsh2571
@@Walsh2571that is because it appears to be voiced using Text-To-Speech. You can specifically notice this at 1:19 in the video when dark matter is described as a "lead actor" but the word is pronounced like Lead (PB, the element) rather than "Lead" (rhymes with reed)
It made sense in the past. Vera Rubin, Kent Ford, Ken Freeman, and others did great work in finding discrepancies. I just never liked that the proposed numbers stayed the same, while things like an additional halo of matter around the Milky way, exoplanets, rogue planets, and other discoveries seem to increase the actual amount of matter in the galaxy. Plus, we don't fully understand the way gravity works over long distances. Seems to all come together to undermine Dark Matter theory.
Thank you, mr. Gupta, for getting rid of dark matter. I never liked it. 🙏🏽
If only we could remove the dork matter from the U.S. Congress.
This dude seems to be ALL IN on this theory. Zero bias here lmao
Tired light should be renamed "weakened light" instead.
The following is well known mainstream physics:
We know that light "slows down" due to dielectric of matter. While light always goes with the speed of light. This slowing down is caused by the atoms creating a complementary electromagnetic wave. The complementary wave is caused by the electric charges moving in the atom due to the electromagnetic wave. The waves together create a wave that seems slowed down. The dielectric constant that is related to this new speed of light, depends on the frequency of the incoming wave, relative to the resonance frequency of the electrons around the atoms.
This same electromagnetic interaction cause a push-force on dielectric matter. The movement of electric charge caused by the electric field, moves through the magnetic field of the electromagnetic wave. This causes a small force away from the source of the electromagnetic wave.
The magnetic field also causes the Zeeman effect and the electric field the Stark effect. This means that the electron shells move towards a slightly different positions. Even when light hits the atoms.
My personal theory:
This lowers the frequency of the dielectric during the electromagnetic wave. And thus the complementary wave caused by the dielectric will be of slightly lower frequency than the incoming wave. And this means that we will see a redshift. This redshift depends on how much the atoms react to the zeeman/stark effect. And I guess that this is greater with hydrogen that is under extremely low pressure, like that in space.
This just makes more sense to me, the whole dark energy thing always sounded wonky to me, we can't see it or touch it or interact with it but it's there... And 26 billion years would explain the "young" galaxies that JWST found. Great job guys I hope we learn more to support these findings
Next, heads will explode when they discover the Universe is not flat.
Someone will make a steam powered rocket to try to prove it is indeed flat. That usually ends painfully.
It can’t be flat, we live in 3 dimensions
'Flatness, like other dimensions is an illusion of place and scale."@@yesjigzy7379
@@yesjigzy7379 Not that kind of flat. Please google "Flatness in cosmology" (If you are not just joking) ;-)
It might not be flat now, but if you uncork it and leave it out overnight, it will certainly become flat.
It may not contain this magical substance that nearly every astrophysicist says exists but no one has ever found any? Five times as abundant as baryonic matter but there sure ain't any of it around here.
Is is not odd that every time their theories get challenged by new discoveries they have no other explanation but to raise the age of the universe , so the pattern suggest that once new technologies comes online the universe will be aged at 50 billions.
It wouldn’t matter how old the universe ends up being, as long as they quit just making up stuff for which there is no real tangible evidence for (dark matter and dark energy) to explain it with. I’m no physicist, but when I first heard of dark energy and dark matter it just didn’t make any sense to me. Here was this stuff credited with a huge amount of the makeup of the universe, and decade after decade there was still no real evidence for any of it. I felt as if they had just gotten lazy and started making stuff up to explain what they were observing. Now my gut feelings from back then may be vindicated.
The existence of dark matter made sense based on what was observed. At first we thought the earth was geocentric, until we had evidence it wasn't. New information means re-evaluation.@@charlessansom4849
@@charlessansom4849 When I first heard of Einstein's "fudge factor" it was shocking to think that even he would just force fit some numbers into something to make it work.
Dark matter likewise seems to be a "fudge factor" liken unto the Emperor's New Clothes.
I was under the impression DM was used to explain galaxy coherence… it was Dark Energy that explains the expansion of the universe itself. And both are simply filler numbers that make the math work, while research looks for the reasons for observations…
The techniques used to calculate the presence of dark matter end up producing extremely erratic results across the universe. So either dark matter is naturally extremely erratic in its distribution or there's something seriously wrong with some basic assumptions of how to perform astronomy. That isn't to say that any one change will resolve the problem. Most likely it's a combination of unintuitive issues that make observations very difficult to decode.
We should let JWST carry on discovering for a further 5 years and then the scientists can then go about rewriting the books on everything published in the past, which is mostly wrong.
"mostly wrong"=Qanon hyperbole. However, yes indeed, getting quality data from JW would be grande! Unfortunately, we may not be so lucky. This telescope, although extremely expensive and long to construct, is essentially a disposable craft. I believe it already has significant punctures in its array from intersecting meteoroids of small size. Let's hope it survives to observe the origin of our known Universe.
Whenever we think there is a constant in this universe, we are wrong.
🤣 26 Billion Years Old until we build an even more advanced telescope and find out even the observable universe is waaaay older than we thought and the universe outside that seems to be …. infinity/ no end ✅
"The implications are profound." If true, maybe; not so much if it isn't. It's not just that DM might help to explain gravity at astronomical distances; without DM (or something similar) how can gravity be explained at all? How can two apparently unconnected objects attract if there's literally nothing between them? Without some sort of undetectable fabric of spacetime gravity makes no sense at all.
Our ability to sense the universe revolves around the 5 main senses, plus things like our vestibular sense, sonar, magnetism, gravitational waves and other lesser senses. But how can we determine the existence of other senses? Is dark matter maybe a state that has no known way to be detected to humans.
The new model doesn't exactly say dark matter and dark energy don't exist, but rather that there's another explanation for the phenomena that they were designed to explain. Which is good since I've always felt dark matter and energy were something of a kluge.
Dr. Gupta's study is a great development for space science. I would suggest that those interested in the future of cosmology explore the Electric Universe science at The Thunderbolts Project. EU has long recognized that dark matter and dark energy do not exist.
Tired light is not a widely accepted theory
If gravity can bend light, it can also slow it down.
Science isn’t based upon ad populum.
It was really knackered electrons?
@@rozzgrey801 Is a photon a particle or a wave? Waves are vibrations in frequency. Light waves could council each other out. Or create different patterns. One of the great mysteries of the universe.
We really do not know what light is.
@@randywise5241 That's what I always thought. I thought it also to be demonstrated by a rainbow casted through the refraction of light by a prism.
It's often beneficial to address a problem without inadvertently causing new ones in the process.
I think a 26b year old universe sounds much better. 13b years just hasn’t seemed long enough to explain what we see now.
How does one conceptualize 13 billion vs 26 billion years. In your mind, can you really visualize the difference?
@@old-slow-and-tired I just think locally. They say the earth is 4+ billion years old. Then the sun/system would be 4-6 billion. Now we are at half the age of the universe almost. Seems to indicate we are at most a second generation star system. Just doesn’t seem long enough when you still have to form all the galaxies, galaxy super clusters, etc. 26b gives more breathing room for all these systems to form before we come along.
@@mrzeldthe original thought was time didn't move at the rate it does now so they allow for development. They'll eventually work their way back to an immortal universe
@@disturbed157Indeed. Or an "eternal" universe as per Roger Penrose.
@@mrzeld Absolutely. The age of the sun versus the age of the universe always bothered me. It's glaring. The universe must be older, and possibly non-linear in time scale.
String theory, cold fusion, controlled fusion, dark matter Aether......all job security for scientists
Tired light has been proposed for years. It is true that nothing travels in the universe without effect. But this idea has been around for a long time.
1.20 "....one of the universe's LEAD actors" as in Pb? Weird
Could we see electro-magnetism replacing dark matter in the future?
Best AI I've heard (slightly annoying voice quality...but you can't have everything). Doubling the age of the universe makes one wonder how many older races there are out there.
lmao i’m pretty sure that’s his real voice
@@xaza8uhitra4
I don’t think so. A previous video had the narrator saying “telescop” (te-lə-skäp) which is easy to typo but near impossible to read for any English-fluent space enthusiast reader. It’s as if the content creator accidentally forgot the e and sent the text to the speech generator.
Edit: found it. At 00:42 of this video: ua-cam.com/video/81ebxOVDLfw/v-deo.htmlsi=0IuThdVzkp1Ed3HT
It pronounced "covarying" like "cova REEing" in this video, but I wasn't sure if the narrator just didn't recognize the word. "Telescop" seals it. I hope the voice actors of the world have a plan B.
Doubling the age of the Universe gives a better chance of it being eternal, on both ends...
I thought that too. There definitely could be civilizations a couple billion years ahead of us.
What stops the Milky Way flying apart? It would be impossible to travel in a straight direction in the Galaxy, the many gravity fields warp space. These many, many gravity fields combine to bend space so much that space is bent inwards preventing objects from leaving.
That would explain "Hotel California".
The wrapping.
There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. Dynamic chaotic systems are hard for our simulations to comprehend. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like gravity, density, friction, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many many more cosmic bodies & structures.
We are getting better & better at certain things but some things are just so vast that it's understandable if we don't fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to measure & comprehend these things. Not just on large scales but the extremely small scale as well. When it comes down to our simulations, the smallest changes in our measurements can change so much. I'm just hoping we learn certain things in my lifetime. I'm really curious where future discoveries will lead us.
Finally someone is questioning the orthodoxy. Good.
Dark matter always felt like a convenient invention that was never observed. I am all for entertaining these other theories.
As the cosmos ages, is it following a cycle which can be defined, or just moving on a journey where it has not gone before? What should we call that place that the Cosmos is entering ? A lot to ponder. 🤔
That Light experiences Space & Time is wonderful. Light is just another thing similar to everything.
Refreshing, I have often thought, how long do you keep looking for something, before you realise, what your looking for may in fact, not be there at all, we must all keep thinking, of, outside of the box possibilities.
We all know that nibbler poops out dark matter. Which gets burnt up in the ships engines. If it was all over the universe then nibbler wouldn’t be needed. So it can’t exist unless it comes out of a niblonian.
It would be great if this channel could put a link to the paper in the description. You can find the paper on his Research Gate. It is open access.
This "electrified plasma universe" the late Wallace (Wal) Thornhill, Dr. C J. Ransom and James M. Kenyon has no "dark matter" as Wal stated so many times already, but contains electrified plasma and electricity always comes with a magnetic field and this is what holds galaxies together, electromagnetic energy!
Finally someone has done the actual research on this.
The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. 0:42
NASA you forget to say that most are questioning his formulas, they are way too linear in a nonlinear quantum-universe, and that most agrees that 26 billion years old universe is unprovable, since we can not look past 13.727 billion years.
On the other hand is Gupta, one of the person you listen to when he speaks!
I would love to get rid of that dark-confusion, but it may not be it.
Scientists should have realized they got the age of the universe wrong when the Methuselah Star was discovered
There is no age to the universe
Correct. Why would matter have waited through all eternity until now to start a universe ? There is certainly no end to it. Dark energy is probably gravity from structures outside our observational range, such as the Great Atractor.
@@patrickclayton2732that’s exactly what it is.
🤔
Hasn't the "tired light" theory been ruled out ages ago? How come it is suddenly popping up again?
They are trying bit by bit to step back from the current nonsense. Even Edwin Hubble after a decade additional research wrote a letter to US Astronomical society to inform them that the red sift is not an indication of Universe expansion. "They" force him to be silent. There is out the "Holly Grail" of cosmology - the dream of every scientist - the "Theory of Everything" which explaining in simple and clear term all fundamental elements and forces in the Universe. Currently "They" still manage to hide it, but more and more people get aware of it - It is in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that you will enjoy it. Regards
How much is circles orbiting circles in order to explain the positions of the planets in the sky?
It's becoming quite obvious these days, that the latest, suprising observations by JWST, and new aproach to the evolution of our Universe presented among others by prof. Gupta provides us with completely new perspective on the subject. We can say that all these new findings make us realize how much we do not know about our Universe, and shows this "do not know" area is constantly growing, what samhow contradicts our expectations. Kosmos astonishes us every day.
Wasn't it Dr. Robitalle said 'I know what dark matter is. It's duct tape for bad physics'. Well done, Dr. Gupta. Wake up physics, get your thinking caps on.
Thank You for this Video, & I believe he is right. I never believed in the Dark Matter Theory, Something always seemed off to me about it.
Dark matter has always seemed like magic to me.
there's an old [not ancient...just old, traditional] expression in Greek for everything that we don't know, understand, or simply can't learn... we say ''we load it on the rooster'' [meaning the impossible because a rooster isn't or can't be a pack animal...] so there's the ''dark matter''... loaded on the rooster... lol
@@user-McGiver I Cock-a-doodle-doo not get it.
Imagine including Electromagnetism.
Kurzgesagt needs to make a video on this
If there's no dark matter, how do we explain the rotational velocity characteristics of the arms of galaxies ?
so light is not a constant, which makes more sense. maybe the universe is not expanding, its just swirling around , some bits are going away and some are getting closer.
Dark matter is no more than the dark energy of electromagnetism.
CALLED IT!!!!! LOL When they started talking about dark matter I knew it was bullshit...I call it "The Magic Dust Theory."
Tired light is BS.
But The Public Will Believe ANYTHING 😅😂
First They Say There IS Dark Matter Then They Say There Isn't. They Cannot Make Up Their Mind 😂😅
My sense is that tired light is the right view.
The key word is in “ in the known observable universe”. I always felt that the dark matter and dark energy could not exist in our universe and that the researchers were simply looking at the wrong place or dimensions. Dark matter and dark energy lie in the dimension popularly known as time. I believe this as space that is merely inaccessible. Dark matter is simply much too dense to exist in three dimensions and so it sinks into the fourth inaccessible dimension. For eg black holes. Blackholes sink leaving behind a point in space known as singularity. Singularity marks the point where the dense star cores sink. It is possible for these cores to continue to impact the motion of galaxies and objects long after they sink, for they continue to be tethered to galaxies after they sink, at least for a time more. Space has strength and elasticity and tiny holes and in time will grow weaker. I believe Dr Gupta’s work is a nice start. But truth be somewhere in between. Why must there be an occurrence of only one big bang? That just does not make any sense.
Conjecture 1: Space has strength and elasticity and imperfections and holes. It can bear objects but in time it will grow so weak that even Earth and Moon can potentially create black holes
Conjecture 2: All objects form around imperfections and tiny holes in space, attracting more matter to bend space more. These tiny holes are not very different from a black hole. Matter accretion does not happen in perfectly smooth space. Corollary: A black hole may lie in the centre of every or most known large bodies.
Conjecture 3: All dark matter are dense star cores or matter that is far too dense to be supported by known three dimensions and therefore can only exist in the fourth dimension fancifully labelled as time.
I'm sure there must be a lot of Raj Guptas, but is this by any chance the Raj Gupta (HS class of '73) whose parents were residents in psychiatry at Warren State Hospital in PA? Your sister, Anju, was in some of my classes and, of course, she was one of the smartest kids in school! You were well thought of by your classmates, including my older sister, as an open and friendly guy. I know this is a long shot, but heck.......
Fine, but does this new theory explain the lack of galactic rotation curves?
I wonder what this method might say about the Great Attracter.
Probably still the attractor but much slower
This new research gives new perspective and is rooted in known physics while dark matter theory assumes we dont know everything yet. Both theories are important and I cant wait what comes out of them clashing.
Red shift is a misunderstood thing . Orange shifts to red, red shifts to Infra-red and so we don't GAIN more red, it stays the same, and Ultra Violet becomes Violet and indigo becomes blue, blue shifts to green and green to yellow. A color shift does not mean that we should see more of one color as they all shift, not just orange to red. Surely someone has thought of this but kept that fact hidden. Secondly there is a vast distance between us and red shifted galaxies and so there is tremendous dust between us and them and tremendous amounts of gas also. Which absorb the blue end of the light spectrum, leaving more red to detect. Just like our sunsets. Our sun is not red shifting, we just have to look at the sunset through MORE dust and gas than at noon when there is less directly above. Problems solved. Someone correct me if I am wrong and use factual data and not "Scientists Say" .
our world bright scientists have come to a conclusion !
that there no such thing is dark matter but , grey matter !
The Zen of Science
Everyday Science discovers answers.
Good Science discovers questions.
--Definition discovered by Don Orfeo, 28 May, 2019
Very interesting theory! However I must ask, was the voiceover transcript done by chat gpt? The voiceover provided no value in the 2nd half of the video and instead repeated the same points over and over…
A good first 3 minutes.
For lack of evidence, dark matter was conjured to explain, among other things, why the galaxies are accelerating as they fly apart.
DM has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with galaxies accelerating as they fly apart!! 😱🤥🤥 WTF are you on about?🤨🤪
Here's my layman's theory. You could read the history of the universe(s) by counting the rings like a tree, if you could (you can't). The further out you go from the most recent big bang, the older it is, from the big bang before. There, you would find entropy as we would expect in the far-flung iteration of our present ring.
Durgun bir gözlemciye göre planck zamanı kadar süre geçerse, v >0 hızdaki bir gözlemci için planck zamanından daha kısa zaman geçer mi ???
t' = t . √( 1 - v^2/c^2)
if "t" = tp (planck time) and v >0,
so t' < tp .. Why is this stuff smaller than planck time ?
Hesaba katmadığımız büyük bir zaman toplamı olabilir mi ???
t' = tp . √( 1 - v^2/c^2)
t' = √ [ (G.h/c^5) . ( c^2 - v^2) /c^2 ]
Mp^2 (planck mass) = h. c/G
so, G/c = h/Mp^2
Thus,
t' = √ [ (h^2/Mp^2) . ( c^2 - v^2) /c^6 ]
t' = h/Mp . √( c^2 - v^2) . 1/c^3
c.t' = h/E . √ ( c^2 - v^2)
x' = h/E . √ ( c^2 - v^2)
Pythagorean therom :
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
I think of a space of velocity in 3 dimensions :
v^2 + u^2 = c^2
v : v= dx/dt , velocity of position
u : u=dt'/dt , velocity of time
c : speed of light
c^2 - v^2 = u^2
So manipulation ;
x' = h/E . √ ( c^2 - v^2)
x' = h/E . u
x' = h/E . dt' / dt
E. x'. t = h. t'
if E = h/ t and t=tp and t' < tp ,
so t' = x'
Böylelikle zaman (t) ve konum (x) düzlemleri yer değiştirmeliydi..
Thus, i think, If the duration(t') is less than the Planck time, a particle accelerating beyond this threshold, as perceived by the observer, would appear to navigate primarily along the temporal dimension rather than altering its spatial coordinates.
Additionally, since the transformation of the t'=x' planes is contingent upon the condition E=h/t, this principle should hold true for all subatomic particles. Consequently, these particles ought to be moving within the plane of time rather than the plane of space, right ???
Hence, if we were to account for the mass of all particles that instantaneously move not within the spatial plane but along the temporal dimension, and add it to the mass of a galaxy, the arms of a spiral galaxy should, by necessity, be more closely confined to the center. This is because if subatomic particles travel through the time dimension instead of the spatial plane, the equations that determine the evolving shape of the galaxy over time would be erroneous. Therefore, if the proposition x'=t' holds true for all subatomic particles under the condition E=h/t, there would be no need for the hypothesized dark matter that has been posited to explain the anomalous gravitational effects observed in galaxies, right ?
Pick a language a STICK WITH IT!! WTF is all this bullshit having multiple languages in a comment, or do you usually just copy and paste complete and utter bullshit from some place to put into your comments? You must have some serious self-respect issues if you need to go to such lengths to make yourself feel superior. It isn’t like anyone knows who the hell you are, so I do hope you get yourself the help and treatment you obviously require.
If so, if the 95% of missing matter is somehow related to the age of our universe, does it mean that our universe expands beyond 56 billions years provided that it’s size is tied to its matter distribution at a rather inconstant dispersion rate through time?
JWST seems to indicate that our universe is much more older than thought before ;-)
If no dark matter at all, where is that mass localized on micro and macroscopic scales?
Is it at a bosonic interaction scale?
If so, given the fact that Higgs boson is a tensor particule giving a weight, is the atom-boson association bound by an electric link or by something else? And if so, does it transform to a gravity field at a macroscopic scale?
For microscopic scales, is it all about missing elements in the periodic table?
For macroscopic scales, do virtual particules or rather massless particules have a macroscopic effect?
Like, let’s say, the effect of a wired electric grid?
If so, does it mean that gravity can be modeled at macroscopic and microscopic scales like the nuclear force can be modeled?
Again, what is the equivalent of celestial mechanics applied to very large bodies like a local group or to super clusters?
We know that gravitational lenticular effect bends light. And we know that light can have a pressure on a solar sail, right?
For dark energy, is it a scalar tensor field?
From a pure einsteinian perspective, does it mean that the maximum velocity of light is lower that its real velocity?
Does it mean that space and time as they are different words are different dimensions contrary to the commonly accepted theory?
If so, is space time the representation of an ecliptic 3D space moving through time because of the expansion of the universe and/or is it the reason why atom have a decay due to their energy being lost over time?
Is the big bang what happened when 2 universes had a big kiss?
If so, it it dark energy and/or is dark energy what is the 95% missing part of the universe?
If void doesn’t mean that there is no energy field filling it, if so, how is the energy supported in the absence of atoms in such case?
What if the 95% missing mass is not dark matter mass but missing energy?
If so, how much energy is stored in blackholes?
How much matter is stored in blackholes if any?
A last one: if white holes are reverted blackholes, are stars white holes and if so, are particules like photons emitted the result of blackhole’s singularity grinder’s effect crushed into fine grains hitting the outer layer of a star?
A photon hitting the event horizon stays trapped while another one is virtually sent back.
Yet, what happens when a photon tries to exit a white hole ?
Does it gains 2 times its mass and/or electric charge like or does it experience the same a the blackhole trapped photon?
If light is a wavelength, then it’s therefore a wave. If so, is light pressure carrying energy in the void and emptiness of space?
And then, is there a limit to the energy and frequency of oscillations (and of modulation) overtime?
That said, is pure energy something that decays or something that keeps going indefinitely?
Perpetual machines do not exist, or is it not?
Many people have proposed variable speed of light including Einstein himself and other prominent figures such as Robert Dicke
A few editing mistakes in there and the AI voice reads led as lead (as in Pb)
Isn't this one of the MOND' theory from Mordehai Milgrom ??🤔
Not surprising at all. Can't wait to get a better view of what's really out there; probably more of the same materials and forces we already know.
What about DORK matter? I heard it is responsible for 95% of the science textbooks in the universe.
The under estimation of the mass and amount of black gravitational stars , black holes.
I always wondered how scientists like Rich Carrol (I think his name is Rich) can believe the motion of a galaxy being the plausible existence of dark matter, based on the observation of the motion of the spiral arms, but the Earth, and Mr. Carroll, and the stars, and the universe itself, is not worth the plausible possibility that there is a designer to it all...VERY hard to take someone with those dipolar beliefs seriously, even if he does have a bunch of paper on his wall, and camera time on 'science of our eras' television programs and YouTard (sorry) vids....
we're already out of dark matter. dinosaurs hatch from eggs during the rays of cosmic events, and turn into oil. these are probably yeti's or lochness monsters. but, how, when.
(1) Informative video, thanks. (2) The text seems to have been assembled and read by AI. This is not good at all. (3) Final minutes are motivational speech. It would have been better if it was limited to its scientific content.
...wow, what a strange pronunciation of "lead actors" at 1'18"...it should be said like "leed", not like the metal lead! Ignore the spelling, this is the English language here! Is the narrator a real person or something else? Just a thought...🤔🧐
Have you read Time Waves on the Shores of Forever? This follows a major part of the theories in the book.
Maybe time is a force, not a dimension?
No dark matter? It’s joined aether, phlogiston, etc. in scientific oblivion?
Does that mean the equations are wrong?
good video but dude, that last line needs some work 🙄
Not hard to imagine. Dark matter a desperate stretch.
I cannot comment on his calculations, but his premis is crrect, ie ccc & tired light. Notwithstanding dark energy, I don't understand what this has to do with dark matter. Dm is a gravitational phenomena. Gravitons go through a number of symmerty adjustments as they travel to matter manifesting altered effects on matter from large scale of the universe all the way down to a proton.
In the end, I never cared much about the age of the universe because it is inconsequential to present and there are better things to focus on, namely technology.
You’re a moron!
it's actually quite simple .just think of gravity as dialated time. not a mystery cause. slow takes less energy than fast. but more time.
once you realize what you are looking at . water vapor rising to a blue sky. it's kinda obvious.
What seems "kinda obvious" is, in no way, demonstrated to be the best explanation of how the universe came into being.
@@chuckgrigsby9664 just wait. when you start seeing things move away from gravity and light acting weird. if you build a model out of the facts. not interpretation. natural example and law. how nature did what nature does. becomes clear. want to know how. no faith required.
@@chuckgrigsby9664 try thinking of what would happen if atom that can exist 2 dimensionally. like hydrogen, oxygen and graphite came together and made heat through friction. boom. hydrogen burns to form water and oxygen burns to form carbon. the rest sorts itself out. Light keeps track .
@@atticuswalker You have clearly made the correct decision when you decided not to become a cosmologist (or a scientist).
@@chuckgrigsby9664 your probably right. I thought science was the search for truth using facts. but I could be wrong. occams razor happens to be the best fit. the things we see and measure would be what it is. the sky would be blue if uv light redshifted in the atmosphere. and shifted red at the horison where the cold air at sea level is denser. Light would refraction in glass.
Do we want to say we live in a "tired light" universe?
I have been saying this for as long as I've been saying human being didn't evolve from apes...nice to be vindicated, on half of my hypothesis' at least...
N one has been vindicated about anything, except the fact that you’re obviously a moron!! How has this garbage, which is just a hypothesis, none of it has been even remotely proven to be true, vindicated you’re ridiculous and non-sensical suppositions?😱🤔
Liked and shared.
It’ll be kinda funny if all those scientists that have chased dark matter and dark energy for years have all been chasing their own tails.
Some of these results have already been explained - some are not galaxies while the distances to others were wrongly calculated and were closer than first thought - a common event in cosmology research. The other results will be revisited by the JWST and investigated further.
Invoking the "tired light hypothesis" is almost certainly not the answer. If photons lost energy then it would change its momentum as they travelled through the universe and so it would result in the blurring of stars and galaxies - other problems include it doesn't account for the change in the sky's brightness over time, the universe's thermal spectrum, and it also can't account for the black body spectrum of the cosmic microwave background without some incredible coincidences.
I always wondered about dark matter. It just seems counterintuitive
I have an exciting old theory that is now an observation. There is no need to modify gravity. Less gravity accelerates time and inflates distance both of which accelerate causation making everything happen faster including lightspeed while maintaining the speed of light 186,000 miles per second. The concept is so simple at least for mechanically minded people. If you change the size of a cubit, you will change the size of the house that you build with it. If instead of driving 60 kilometers an hour you drive 60 miles an hour, you will obviously increase your speed because you increased the distance that you traveled in an hour. Then if you change from 60 miles an hour to 60 miles in half an hour, you will obviously increased your speed again because you traveled 60 miles in less time. General relativity is no longer just a theory, it is an observation. Distance expands with less gravity and time speeds up with less gravity effectively making everything faster including light without breaking the speed of light.
A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. Our observation of the earth is flat locally the same as our observation of the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving.
The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. *Do a thought experiment.* Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*
You’re an absolute moron if you actually believe that general relativity is somehow an observation!! How can you possibly observe time dilation or length contraction? I absolutely LOVE this bit of your ranting and raving: less gravity accelerates time and inflates distance both of which accelerates causation. 🤥🤥WTF?? You don’t even understand wtf it is you’re ranting about! Not even slightly. Please explain, how the fuck can causation possibly be accelerated by ANYTHING WHATSOEVER? 😱🤯What difference do you propose more or less gravity could possibly have on causation, by what physical phenomenon does this occur, exactly? 🤥🤥
You know you’ve completely lost all grip on reality when you say things like: accelerate causation making everything faster including lightspeed while maintaining the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second. Again, wtf are you actually talking about? It’s clearly evident that you don’t understand ANY of what you’re saying! As in, NONE OF IT. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that c is magically accelerated yet STILL remains at 300,000km/s? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!!
Just because you have a dream and write it down, DOES NOT mean that somehow whatever you’ve dreamed up is now real. Nor does it mean that somehow your hypothesis is now an observation.NONE of what you dreamed up has ever or will ever be observed!🤪🤪