Are We Wrong About Our Universe? | Science's Greatest Mysteries | BBC Science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2024
- Astronomer Royal for Scotland, Catherine Haymans, has spent decades refining her dark matter map, reiterating the unsettling truth that we don’t understand 95% of our universe. The cosmos is composed of dark matter, dark energy, and ordinary matter and could actually be much younger than we think.
Best of Earth Science: bit.ly/EarthLabOriginals
Best of BBC Earth: bit.ly/TheBestOfBBCEarthVideos
Taken From the Series: Science's Greatest Mysteries
Does science have all the answers? This series examines some of the biggest riddles facing scientists today. We've solved some of the most complex questions about our world and the universe. But the more we discover, the more problems emerge. Exactly how old is our universe? Why are the two sides of our moon so different? How did iron from space end up next to the body of Tutankhamun? Each film in this series tackles a single question, visiting the cutting-edge labs running mind-bending experiments and meeting the dedicated scientists searching for answers.
This is a channel from BBC Studios who help fund new BBC programmes. Service information and feedback: bbcworldwide.com/vod-feedback-... - Наука та технологія
We’re definitely wrong, but that is why we science. Reasonable certainty is a long term goal.
Well said!!!
I am always amazed at the hubris of humans thinking that their short time using science and being stuck on one little planet makes them think that they know so much.
The sheer arrogance of it is hilarious
It binds the galaxy together…
lol 😂
Dark matter is the FORCE!
Star Wars
Very interesting 😮
Dark matter, dark energy, twins which suggest that we don't have a clue about what's going on.
Some years ago the BBC science unit conducted an experiment using the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe is unbounded or bounded in the four dimensions. The result was indeed a cosmos unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. It didn't begin and has no edge. That is what they said (Presented by BBC scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock).
Dark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. 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 because 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. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. 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 (like NGC 1052-DF2) 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.
Time dilation refers to the relativistic difference between clocks moving at different speeds, but that's not the precise reason singularities cannot occur. When mass becomes infinite, as is the case in black holes, Einstein tells us that time stops for that mass making further collapse, or any other changes to that mass impossible.
@@davidhess6593 Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Niel deGrasse Tyson recently talked about this.
Relativistic effects are all from an vantage point of an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. In other words time always flows normal from the observers perspective. We are all traveling at the speed of light relative to some potential vantage point.
@@shawns0762 Of course. Anything that affects time affects space too. Time is part of *Space/Time*, however keep in mind that at the speed of light, time stops and no further change is possible.
@@davidhess6593 Time doesn't stop at the speed of light. "Our" time loses relevance to an object/observer traveling at or near the speed of light.
@@shawns0762 Would you be more comfortable if I said that material moving at the speed of light could no longer experience change? That isn't my concept. The credit for it goes to Einstein for his 1905 and 1915 papers.
The universe we see and new discoveries might all be a result of the Observer Effect.
I observed Uranus.
@@The_Dude_Abides117
I want to probe Uranus
it has something to do with the #42 and/or its all Hamsters :)
I am surprised. I have heard it suggested, many many times, that our universe is much older than 13.8 bil. That in some way it is cyclic. This is the first time I've heard it suggested, by a serious source, that it's more likely much younger than we have been told. I am not for one moment casting doubt, I'm just surprised. That's not the direction that most observers seem to be looking in.
I agree
Where can we watch the full version of this?
We are most definitely more wrong than we are right. It’s what makes science so intriguing. Carry on, Science!
We are all wrong!
I often think the greatest advancement we will ever make as a species is to give up our hubris. I think we’d become better observers.
Cosmic web like structure ,try birkeland currents and electromagnetism
We don't even understand much about the 5% we can observe!
Λcdm model is so simple that it’s impossible to come up with anything simpler (with less exotic unknowns)
How can she draw a map of the dark matter if she cannot see it?
Katherine and the Universe are attractive. It's not all gravity though..
The topography of the universe over time and how it changes nothing but our perception of distance and time.
If dark matter changes states between a liquid and gaseous state then there would have been a time where almost all of the dark matter cooled, condensed and collapsed. This liquid state contraction could possibly have led to direct collapse black holes and galaxies. The condensing of dark matter may have also contributed to that uniformity of temperature.
If the dark matter was in its liquid state then baryonic and dark matter would have been much more concentrated (much higher average cosmic density in gravity wells ). This would have resulted in deeper gravity wells. The time in these gravity wells to us would seem to be moving slower to us. But due to dark matter condensing the baryonic matter would also have been cooled and rushing together.
Once stars were formed and black holes became active the ratio of liquid to gaseous dark matter would have decreased over time thus affecting the evolution of particle masses. And making the gravity wells progressively shallower and larger in diameter over time. Galaxy clusters would have evaporated almost all of their liquid dark matter resulting in the shallowest part of the gravity well being near the canter of the cluster. Also part of redshift is due to the difference depth of the average gravity well at that point in time compared to now. The slope of that line would also have flattened over time.
The CMB (higher average cosmic density in gravity wells ) could also be from when the LDM ratio drops to low in the cosmic web to transmit Baryonic acoustic waves
Light red shifts as it climbs out of a gravity well. Thus the further you go back in time the more light is redshifted. This would leave everything the same with the exception of our perception that the universe is expanding. Also if a big portion of the redshift is from climbing out of a deeper gravity well then we are not looking as far into the past as we think. The current average cosmic density in gravity wells is still slowly dropping.
Phase transitioning dark matter could also answer several of the biggest questions in cosmology, as well as being the largest ionizer in the universe.
I wouldn't claim to comprehend the role of baryonic acoustic waves or the red shift of light as it emerges from gravity wells. What I have read is the possible role of theoretical "quantum foam" in explanations about the theoretical behavior of the theoretical twins, dark energy and dark matter. These "darknesses" are just placeholders waiting to be removed for an improved theory which replaces the admittedly incomplete one at present. This deficiency is similar to the infinite density of a black hole singularity, since infinity represents the lack of coherent mathematics capable of resolving what happens to matter after crossing the event horizon. In response to Einstein's "God does not play dice," Hawking responded, "Not only does God play, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen". Can't see them much better almost six years after Hawking's demise, it would seem.
Do you get robes when you become the Astronomer Royal like when you become the Arch Mage of Winterhold College?
The scale was originally designed in 1964 by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev (who was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals). It has 3 base classes, each with an energy disposal level: Type I (10¹⁶W), Type II (10²⁶W), and Type III (10³⁶W). Other astronomers have extended the scale to Type IV (10⁴⁶W) and Type V (the energy available to this kind of civilization would equal that of all energy available in not just our universe, but in all universes and in all time-lines). These additions consider both energy access as well as the amount of knowledge the civilizations have access to.🌎🌍🌏🌐🌐🌐🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌠🌠🌠🌠👽👽👽👽👽👽🧘🧘♀️🧘♂️👫🧕👲👳♀️👦👧🏟🏞🏝🏜🏖🏕🗻🌋🏗🏛🏢🏤🏥🏯🏠🏡🏩🏪🏬🏯💒🏰🕍🛕⛪️🌁🗽🗼🕋⛩️🎪💈🎢🎡🎠🌉🌇🌆🌄🌄🏙🌃🌁🚉🚈🚇🚆🚅🚄
Billions spent on space exploration and we know nothing.
So sort out the problems on Earth before thinking of going anywhere else.!!
I thought the Johnson Webb space telescope proved that the universe was older than the big bang. But , what do I know? 🖖
How can anyone guess how old the universe is. It could be infinitely old.
Maybe we haven't been able to detect dark energy because it is actually an inherent part of space-time. It's possible that 96% of the universe consists of space-time, while the remaining 4% encompasses everything else within the universe.
These types of sensation isn’t documentaries that go against a large amount of evidence drive me nuts. Yes, there are alternate hypotheses and we may refine what we know. But the hypotheses must explain the other evidence that supports a different conclusion.
Short version: we know nothing about anything.
Holy books try to explain why questions...... but scientists want to know . How??,,
We don’t even know what we don’t know; and it’s unlikely that we ever will.
Yes. We know nothing. It doesn't matter. We are a blink.
@roybatty2030 ok tell me please if we know nothing about existence why do we worship God(s)
I think it's because many people can't face the realities if existence and need to comfort themselves with fairytales, which, of course, plays into the hands of people who like to control and exploit others...d@@user-wx6pf2bc2r
Latest estimates put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years (time elapsed since the Big Bang). So how much younger than that are we talking? We know that there are galaxies close to that old, so it can't be too much younger, unless those estimates are wrong too.
Imagine Uni-Verse in Quanta.
Like early astronomers calculating planetary epicycles, we desperately theorize on some mysterious dark matter to explain the still expanding universe. Occam’s answer would cut through all that thrashing. The accelerant force lies not within our Big Bang cosmos, but without. We are not the center of the universe. The rest of the universe, from other big bangs, all around us, is pulling. - TEJ
My mind _ infinite Universe
If we are wrong, we are dam right…, wrong 🤔
Considering “we” invented math to give us the answer’s we wanted! Well there you go.
Maths is discovered, no?
We don't know yet. Scientists "agree" with answers right know.
If I am cyclic, maybe you are seeing my younger self too.
How is it possible she said we know 5%? Do we have an idea of the 100% of the model? This is as bogus as anything else.
Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy
- 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different.
The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem.
I agree to that idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics.
But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena.
That's because gravity is not a force.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime.
Details are given below.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass.
This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation.
Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime.
However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass.
This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity.
So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method.
An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime.
In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime.
So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass?
The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time.
Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one.
Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t.
We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time.
Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time.
The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions.
The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it.
The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions.
The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble.
The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects.
So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it.
These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass.
Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter.
Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface.
These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat.
This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other.
It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating.
The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy.
The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy.
Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows.
As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model.
Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second.
Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s.
This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer.
At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc).
Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as:
Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc
The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close.
There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted.
- Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
It does seem a tad grandiose to think we mere primates can understand all that is and will forever be and has ever been.
Last One...Bye...If you were in a room..With a normal window moving @ light speed forward..."The Window Is Too Big To Steer Through The Blurry Future"...."Create A Sensible Focused Time Gap"...So "Block Up The Window".."Make A PinHole"..And "Steer From The Upside Down Past 20/20 Hindsight Rear Wall Image"...→ > -|- < → You can "Steer" from a "Clear Rear Window Too"..Either Way..??.."Hindsight Is The Best Guide To The Future"..."The Rear Wall"..??.."Is The Only Wall That Will Make Sense"...Take Care...Bye..
The world is yours
1:52
"Gods" are fertilized eggs!
It just came out that there was an opinion that the universe was 26.4 billion years old and now she is saying the opposite. More study and maybe larger or more sensitive instruments are needed.
We cant understand the universe, its like amoeba trying to understand earth
Of course we're wrong. Constantly wrong. But we'll continue to scribble, scribble, scribble regardless.
I find the argument that we "don't understand 95% of our universe" rather simplistic and deceitful. ok, so let's imagine we're studying a desktop computer, and we have clear understanding of all semiconductors in there, i.e. CPU, GPU, RAM, SDD; and then we weight the whole PC, yea, we just understand only about 1% of the whole PC!, but clearly what's missing is rather simple, just steel and cables, fans, way more simple than a CPU. So compare complexity/understanding with it's "effect" is not right. What we know might be 5% or maybe 90% or maybe 0,001%, has nothing to do with mass/energy amount. Actually, AFIWK gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces and yet, it's the one giving us more headache, if we follow the same rule of the 5%, gravity should have the "easiest" to figure out and understand a 1Ton rock waaay harder than a human brain
Whilst her knowledge is most certainly one from greater observation, I will definitely not be accusing her of any meaningfulness today.
I fail to see how she comes to her conclusion with such a small sample set of the sky.
Conclusions about what exactly, and from which small sample size of the "sky"? I hope it's not the 5% she mentioned, which are the crumbs cosmologists and astrophysicist have to admit represents their current understanding of the expansion of the universe. The other 95% is the humble pie they are forced to regularly swallow because their morsel of comprehension is so tiny.
She suspects !!!!!
We know a lot but we know nothing!
Yes. Wrong. Arthur Milne was the first to argue for special relativistic cosmology, but due to its incompleteness and several errors, it gave way to the incorrect general relativity-based cosmology as the mainstream cosmology. However, in fact, the cosmology based on special relativity is correct, and even general relativity itself is wrong. If you want to know the true appearance of the universe, please look for the book 'Relativistic Universe and Forces' or related posts. And I hope you will participate in correcting incorrect knowledge about the universe and spreading correct knowledge.
God created this beautiful infinite Universe. What's more to this ?
A lifelong task...hope it pays well 😊 The Book Of Revelation gives information about how it ends...
I think it's ok not to understand DM/DE, and instead to research things more achievable which could greater benefit humans
Since 1905 the psycho-physicians ( Einstein first ) lost any contact with the reality and with the reasoning.
Laphysiqueneoclassique fr
AI will figure it out in 50 years😏
Man, this video is so non-elucidative. Everybody knows there are gaps.
Like the autopilot is constantly correcting course meaning the plane is mostly off course, so is science.
The universe started a week ago last Tuesday.
Well it is on a different time scale.
Everyone have a wonderful day. 👽
What generates the Higgs field? The Big Bang? Sagittarius A or our sun? If it is generated then the Higgs field would have a variable density, more dense closer to the source.
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet.
The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves.
The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated.
The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law.
Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law.
So, what is The Law?
In a word, The Law is options.
Definition
option: a thing that is or may be chosen.
The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is.
Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.
In clarifying what The Law is;
The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing.
Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.
Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating;
the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon,
the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded,
the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded,
the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence,
the concept of options, and
Free Will.
However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential.
As we experience The Law in our Being,
The Law is Free Will.
The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent.
The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
"Truth is always relative to the closed system it exists within. Existence is, in the strictest sense, a closed system. There are truths within existence that are true and there are truths within existence that are not true. Truth can only exist in a closed system and may or may not be true outside of that closed system, not therein. Truth is that which men and women convey through Voice and Word. One's offered truth may or may not be true. Truth and true are not the same word, and subsequently, truth and true are not the same thing. True is that which can be shown in words through at least one question and its exact answer. That which can be shown in words can subsequently be seen by all men and women.
In the closed system of the Catholic Church of four hundred years ago, the truth was that our planet was the centre of a geocentric planetary system. Galileo posited that our planet was a part of a heliocentric solar system and spent the last years of his life under house arrest as a consequence of going against the truth of the Church. The Church has since changed its truth to the heliocentric solar system model."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
@@starc.who is goho tekina otoko?
@@starc. did you brainwash yourself into it?
@@worldofbodybuilding111 it takes years to understand what he wrote, I'm still learning. Do you have another question?
We don't even know if this is a simulation or not, and no one is really keeping this in mind (also if you think about the laws like relativity and gravity, they are very weird for an original universe, so it's more likely a simulation than not; but also just probabilistically more likely).
Yes very very wrong 👽CE-5👍
Can an infinite mass, infinite time, infinite energy "gravity well / black hole" really exist? How could it be formed in the first place? I used to 'believe' in the black hole theory. But really it doesn't make sense. I suppose that is where the joke that when God created the Universe, he divided by zero. ;)
Black holes are based on a mathematical misconception. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. 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 because 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. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. 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 (like NGC 1052-DF2) 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.
"Are we wrong about out universe" ?
if you are playing the Right and Wrong game about the universe then you are wrong .
that is the problem you and your mathematical models has ..expecting things that suitable to your equation's and models want. that's why you stuck.
you cant balance and combine all together things as you expected...
something is wrong here...its a big challenge for everybody.....
and it challenging all school and university books and teachings currently existing today.
There's a lot of this 'we' being pushed here. I am fed up with this 'we, the indoctrinated sheep' mentality shouting down those of us who do know just to protect your tenure.
Lets get married
your wrong because you think dark matter exists it suggests it as a xyz coordinate and as mass it doesnt dark energy ?? i dont think you fully understand exactly what energy is or you would not use such words as dark energy as space holds no properties then what you refer too unfortunately does not exist
I agree kinda, dark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. 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 because 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. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. 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 (like NGC 1052-DF2) 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.
hi shawn im sorry but for you to write what have you dont fully understand it as neither did einstien
@@user-li4wk7hb1l Dilation is a known fundamental phenomenon. Einstein's reasoning on why singularities do not exist is solid as a rock. He is known to have repeatedly spoken about this, he put it in writing. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.
It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities in the 1960's when the concept gradually became mainstream.
There was clarity in astronomy before the concept of singularities took hold.
The shape of a galaxy is common in nature. From atoms to our solar system, the overwhelming majority of the mass is in the center. The same must be true for galaxies. Where there is an astronomical quantity of mass there is an astronomical quantity of energy. The night sky should be lit up from the galactic center, but it isn't.
The modern explanation for this is because gravitational forces are so strong there that not even light can escape. The original and correct explanation is because the mass there is dilated relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid.
The old adage. Science does not know everything. And never will.
But at least scientists don't just make up crap about a magic man in the sky.
Science models are almost never 100% correct... that helps the scientific process to find out new truths! Religion is always 100% "correct" and that's why they can't learn anything new.
truth, seems a worthy pursuit, but not quite so.
"Truth is always relative to the closed system it exists within. Existence is, in the strictest sense, a closed system. There are truths within existence that are true and there are truths within existence that are not true. Truth can only exist in a closed system and may or may not be true outside of that closed system, not therein. Truth is that which men and women convey through Voice and Word. One's offered truth may or may not be true. Truth and true are not the same word, and subsequently, truth and true are not the same thing. True is that which can be shown in words through at least one question and its exact answer. That which can be shown in words can subsequently be seen by all men and women.
In the closed system of the Catholic Church of four hundred years ago, the truth was that our planet was the centre of a geocentric planetary system. Galileo posited that our planet was a part of a heliocentric solar system and spent the last years of his life under house arrest as a consequence of going against the truth of the Church. The Church has since changed its truth to the heliocentric solar system model."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
Religion is right about what ? Almost all predictions and historical claims made by religion are falsified by science. It has no predictive power
How can you even claim religion to be correct when there is no evidence of it being correct. Which religion are you even referring to ?
@@yalexander9432 he is saying religion makes the claim thats how the religious think of religion priests preach it as if its correct. Still though theres a lot of wisdom parted in religious texts as it was the social glue that propelled our species forward the precursor first half attempt at philosophy and science by cavemen; essentially the first attempt at explaining the world around us
@@starc. I see I misunderstood
So 96% of what's around us, we have no idea of. That makes my existence seem very fragile indeed; it could all end tomorrow through 'the 96% effect'. Let's hope we see a Palestinian state before that happens :).
She doesn't say anything new.
뭔 환각이야.
모르냐?
General이 뭐야? 여기 현존하는 3차원 공유 우주 아냐.
Special은 철학이라구여. 니 내면.
의 환각에 빠져 사는 인간들아.
이해를 하나도 못하네.
자연 속에서 살지를 않으니까.
GOD enters the chat...
Dumbest title ever.
Speak for yourself. Please don’t include me in the we. They are not “right” about the universe, period.