I'm glad to see him give credit to Bekenstein, who did most of the heavy lifting on the BH entropy equation, although Hawking gets the lion's share of the credit!
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a weakly interactive massive particle (WIMP), but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time itself is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time when mass is present. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. So, how did this warping occur? We believe this warping of space-time occurred during the extreme conditions present during inflation. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. We have a prediction using gravitational lens mapping to prove Dark Matter isn’t a weakly interacting massive particle, but instead is a floating fixed pocket of warped geodesics in space-time geometry causing gravity wells.
Jason G A "warping of space time" that is out not associated with matter amounts to a dark matter particle. They are the same thing just described with different language.
@ Josh, yes warped spacetime is essentially the definition of gravity. I hypothesize that no matter is currently present causing the unknown gravitational effects. DM is just imprints of where energy was during inflation. No particles are presently there. Prediction 1: Spacetime's elastic property hits a yield point, so only that part of geodesic's "stretch marks" would remain after inflation stopped. These steep gravitational wells would not follow the inverse square law. Prediction 2: Since DM has no mass and is hypothesized to only be yielded geodesics, then black holes would not be able to contain DM. Black holes would just pass through DM imprints along with normal spacetime. I am looking for Observationalist to help test these predictions. jacegruber@gmail.com
ok, here comes the part where he talks about how this theory is consistent with the rotational speed of dwarf galaxies. any minute now. he didn't mention observational rotation of dwarf galaxies at all? hrm. why I wonder.
rwgeach -- The recent discovery of the galaxy with little to zero dark matter puts alternatives to GR in jeopardy. Those theories that do not involve a dark matter particle to explain the motions of galaxies essentially change the laws of gravity that govern those motions. So every galaxy should show a dark matter signature, not because of dark matter, but because that signature of dark matter is something inherent in the laws of gravity. Not seeing that signature, even for a single object, is a big problem for those models. Consequently, Verlinde's emergent gravity and MOND theories are in trouble.
rwgeach -- I did read your note. Because of that I thought you'd be interested in the recent finding. It was merely a "and furthermore" kind of comment.
At first I thought it is only my intuition that dark matter condensed into ordinary matter - hydrogen atoms. Then I came across Abraham Loe, professor of astronomy of Harvard University's book"How did the first stars and galaxies form?"2010 edition, pages 45 , 62, and 63, there, Loe actually treated this as a fact, not hypothesis. As to emergent gravity, there is no difference between gravity and electromagnetism, save they appear in different phase spaces, as was the hunch of Einstein when he tried to unify electromagnetism and gravity.
@@stachstach9530 A full description of phase space is given in Alexandre Goskin's "Quantum mechanics, A complete introduction, 2015 edition" on p.11-13.
Neither string theory nor the big bang theory explain the birth of the universe. Relativity theory is a theory of local events for local objects. Studying strings makes no sense without understanding what they became at the final stage of the birth of the universe. If the speed of light were the ultimate speed, then photons would have a huge mass. Besides, time would stop for them. And it would be impossible to take away energy from such an object, or add it to it. If time stopped for a photon, such a photon would pierce everything in its path, burning everything in its path, or rather everything would turn into dust. In addition, the mass of an object flying at speeds close to light speeds for an observer would look like an increase in the mass of the object. In fact, the mass of the object remains unchanged. In fact, the time you need to change the trajectory of an object or stop it increases. And if the speed of an object is equal to the speed of light and time stops for it, then it will take you forever to change the trajectory of its movement or stop. And from this we can draw a conclusion. Theoretically, it is possible to create new universes. Sorting between the created more successful options.
Quantum vs General Relativity: Pardon me I’m a novice, but sometimes it takes a novice to make a point outside of the standard dogma scientist seem to hold. I know that the Standard Theory of Relativity breaks down at a quantum level but I don’t believe the theory for gravity is actually correct in any of Einstein’s hypothesis. The equations may work in a 2 dimensional universe but would need some unexplained force of gravity to push celestial bodies down onto the fabric of Space Time. (like the images we’ve seen 1,000 times of balls rolling around on a trampoline) It also doesn’t explain how people can stand on the bottom of the world or why the oceans don’t fling into space while the earth is spinning around at 1,000 miles per hour. Doesn’t there need to be some kind of attraction or unknown “magnetic” force pushing equally in every direction towards the center of every single piece of mass in the universe? A force more like buoyancy when under water? (Maybe we should revisit the aether?) I think it’s time Theoretical physicist put down their school books and get crackin’ on a new theory. Yes probably one that works in GR and Quantum levels, then we can fold up that “space time blanket” and put it away for good.
The trampoline thing js just a 2D representation of a 3D phenomena. You can more accurately represent it by drawing a 3D grid and making every cube shrink its edges as it gets closer to the center of mass of an object. So using your example in simple terms, since ocean water doesnt particularily move faster than Earth itself in any direction the percieved "force" of gravity acting on the body of water is equal on all sides.
@@matijagrafsoro3783 Then why not just say an equal force in every direction? Oh yah then you wouldn't be able to explain the freefall example like the moon around the earth. You see, you really have no idea do you?
@@rickquest6385 You could, quite easily too. Centripetal force is counteracting the moon's velocity thereby keepimg its orbit relatively stable. I say relatively because its orbital distance actually changes by around 2 centimeters every year if i remember correctly. If the moon was orbiting earth any faster it would eventually escape it's gravity well onwards into tje solar system. Likewise if it was slower it would slowly drift towards Earth until finally crashing into it. The same applies to, as an example, astronauts aboard the ISS. The illusion of a no-gravity enviroment is because of that same centripetal force which combined with the station's velocity counteracts Earth's gravity therefore keeping the astronauts in a perpetual state of free falling but never actually hitting the surface. If the ISS were to suddenly stop moving relative to Earth the entire station would just crash down onto the surface.
I'm with you, Rick. If an apple is falling from a tree onto my head I can't equate this to a deformed rubber sheet, since it is falling directly from height towards the centre of the earth.
@@matijagrafsoro3783 I believe I read somewhere that the Moon would eventually crash into the Earth, but luckily we will be engulfed by the sun when it moves into the next phase of life as a giant red star.
I’m so interested, yet lost by 1:00.
I'm glad to see him give credit to Bekenstein, who did most of the heavy lifting on the BH entropy equation, although Hawking gets the lion's share of the credit!
What is relationship between space dark matter and time which field is responsible for dark matter and energy
How dark mater is formed and when
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a weakly interactive massive particle (WIMP), but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time itself is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time when mass is present. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. So, how did this warping occur? We believe this warping of space-time occurred during the extreme conditions present during inflation. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. We have a prediction using gravitational lens mapping to prove Dark Matter isn’t a weakly interacting massive particle, but instead is a floating fixed pocket of warped geodesics in space-time geometry causing gravity wells.
Jason G A "warping of space time" that is out not associated with matter amounts to a dark matter particle. They are the same thing just described with different language.
@ Josh, yes warped spacetime is essentially the definition of gravity. I hypothesize that no matter is currently present causing the unknown gravitational effects. DM is just imprints of where energy was during inflation. No particles are presently there.
Prediction 1: Spacetime's elastic property hits a yield point, so only that part of geodesic's "stretch marks" would remain after inflation stopped. These steep gravitational wells would not follow the inverse square law.
Prediction 2: Since DM has no mass and is hypothesized to only be yielded geodesics, then black holes would not be able to contain DM. Black holes would just pass through DM imprints along with normal spacetime.
I am looking for Observationalist to help test these predictions. jacegruber@gmail.com
You need math.
And who the HELL are you ?
Do elaborate please
What is dark matter entangledment
ok, here comes the part where he talks about how this theory is consistent with the rotational speed of dwarf galaxies.
any minute now.
he didn't mention observational rotation of dwarf galaxies at all? hrm. why I wonder.
Don't forget "dark galaxies", and things like the bullet cluster.
rwgeach -- The recent discovery of the galaxy with little to zero dark matter puts alternatives to GR in jeopardy. Those theories that do not involve a dark matter particle to explain the motions of galaxies essentially change the laws of gravity that govern those motions. So every galaxy should show a dark matter signature, not because of dark matter, but because that signature of dark matter is something inherent in the laws of gravity. Not seeing that signature, even for a single object, is a big problem for those models. Consequently, Verlinde's emergent gravity and MOND theories are in trouble.
did you even read my comment bruh? emergence and MOND were already in trouble long before a see-through galaxy.
rwgeach -- I did read your note. Because of that I thought you'd be interested in the recent finding. It was merely a "and furthermore" kind of comment.
I'm no expert but can't mr. Verlinde just make some shit up like "brown matter" and solve the problem of his theory not working in dwarf galaxies?
this makes me thinking of Nassim Haramein's space energy theory...
At first I thought it is only my intuition that dark matter condensed into ordinary matter - hydrogen atoms. Then I came across Abraham Loe, professor of astronomy of Harvard University's book"How did the first stars and galaxies form?"2010 edition, pages 45 , 62, and 63, there, Loe actually treated this as a fact, not hypothesis. As to emergent gravity, there is no difference between gravity and electromagnetism, save they appear in different phase spaces, as was the hunch of Einstein when he tried to unify electromagnetism and gravity.
What do you mean by phase spaces?
@@stachstach9530 A full description of phase space is given in Alexandre Goskin's "Quantum mechanics, A complete introduction, 2015 edition" on p.11-13.
I think emerge gravity but 4 forces dark inflation
nice! historic!
I'm out of my depth. Can't understand a thing lmao
Semes to simple
Neither string theory nor the big bang theory explain the birth of the universe. Relativity theory is a theory of local events for local objects. Studying strings makes no sense without understanding what they became at the final stage of the birth of the universe. If the speed of light were the ultimate speed, then photons would have a huge mass. Besides, time would stop for them. And it would be impossible to take away energy from such an object, or add it to it. If time stopped for a photon, such a photon would pierce everything in its path, burning everything in its path, or rather everything would turn into dust. In addition, the mass of an object flying at speeds close to light speeds for an observer would look like an increase in the mass of the object. In fact, the mass of the object remains unchanged. In fact, the time you need to change the trajectory of an object or stop it increases. And if the speed of an object is equal to the speed of light and time stops for it, then it will take you forever to change the trajectory of its movement or stop.
And from this we can draw a conclusion. Theoretically, it is possible to create new universes. Sorting between the created more successful options.
Quantum vs General Relativity:
Pardon me I’m a novice, but sometimes it takes a novice to make a point outside of the standard dogma scientist seem to hold. I know that the Standard Theory of Relativity breaks down at a quantum level but I don’t believe the theory for gravity is actually correct in any of Einstein’s hypothesis. The equations may work in a 2 dimensional universe but would need some unexplained force of gravity to push celestial bodies down onto the fabric of Space Time. (like the images we’ve seen 1,000 times of balls rolling around on a trampoline) It also doesn’t explain how people can stand on the bottom of the world or why the oceans don’t fling into space while the earth is spinning around at 1,000 miles per hour. Doesn’t there need to be some kind of attraction or unknown “magnetic” force pushing equally in every direction towards the center of every single piece of mass in the universe? A force more like buoyancy when under water? (Maybe we should revisit the aether?) I think it’s time Theoretical physicist put down their school books and get crackin’ on a new theory. Yes probably one that works in GR and Quantum levels, then we can fold up that “space time blanket” and put it away for good.
The trampoline thing js just a 2D representation of a 3D phenomena. You can more accurately represent it by drawing a 3D grid and making every cube shrink its edges as it gets closer to the center of mass of an object.
So using your example in simple terms, since ocean water doesnt particularily move faster than Earth itself in any direction the percieved "force" of gravity acting on the body of water is equal on all sides.
@@matijagrafsoro3783 Then why not just say an equal force in every direction? Oh yah then you wouldn't be able to explain the freefall example like the moon around the earth. You see, you really have no idea do you?
@@rickquest6385 You could, quite easily too. Centripetal force is counteracting the moon's velocity thereby keepimg its orbit relatively stable. I say relatively because its orbital distance actually changes by around 2 centimeters every year if i remember correctly. If the moon was orbiting earth any faster it would eventually escape it's gravity well onwards into tje solar system. Likewise if it was slower it would slowly drift towards Earth until finally crashing into it.
The same applies to, as an example, astronauts aboard the ISS. The illusion of a no-gravity enviroment is because of that same centripetal force which combined with the station's velocity counteracts Earth's gravity therefore keeping the astronauts in a perpetual state of free falling but never actually hitting the surface. If the ISS were to suddenly stop moving relative to Earth the entire station would just crash down onto the surface.
I'm with you, Rick. If an apple is falling from a tree onto my head I can't equate this to a deformed rubber sheet, since it is falling directly from height towards the centre of the earth.
@@matijagrafsoro3783 I believe I read somewhere that the Moon would eventually crash into the Earth, but luckily we will be engulfed by the sun when it moves into the next phase of life as a giant red star.
You are using matter as dark matter entropy is same as matter
🇺🇳26:00