"Bullshit grows exponentially". I think you have discovered a universal principal here Dr. Unzicker. At least can we call it "Unzicker's hypothesis"? 😜
I love Dark Matter. Irrefutable proof that science is dead and replaced by mathemagics. The amount of so called pro science anti religious folks that i silence merely by asking: "Is Dark Matter falsifiable and if so how?"
You know, if they just called dark matter "bullshit" or "filler" or even "filler bullshit", people would understand better what is it all about... I'd put a nice wager that our understanding of gravity at cosmological scales is simply flawed.
Well .... I heard the analogy of light bulbs in a tall apartment building at night. You can't really see the building, except for the lights in the windows. You "know" the building is there, something gives structure to have lights in the building... I kinda think it's a shitty analogy... Or that false analogy fallacy...
" our understanding of gravity at cosmological scales is simply flawed." And I suspect that could be partly because our understanding of electromagnetic effects at that scale is flawed. Charges play an enormous role. (and no, it's not that I'd think that gravity rises from electromagnetics, rather the electromagnetic effects are not correctly looked at at quantum level).
Look at my comment above. Macken seems to have a great theory. Thankfully no one has figured out what causes the force of gravity because I have; no equations needed. It is fractal up to the model of a galaxy, but the positions of the galaxies are very different; they don't fit my model. I have been preparing to make my first video.
@@musaire (and no, it's not that I'd think that gravity rises from electromagnetics,) Everything is electromagnetic! So, of course it does. What is your definition of matter? (our understanding of electromagnetic effects at that scale is flawed.) You've got that right! Sorry if I seem disrespectful, but it's just that quantum physics is so bad. "The electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that propagate energy and travel through space in the form of waves" For waves to travel, there has to be something that is WAVING! So light doesn't have a speed; it has a rate of induction. Don't be confused by the fact that some photons behave like or become particles. Dark matter is just quantum physicists renaming something that they were denying the existence of. Admitting that they were wrong would make them seem stupid, but no, they discovered it!!!! Dollard? -- the speed of light is the maximum hysteresis of the ether. OMG I said it, a taboo word in the quantum religion.
In the August edition of "Physics Today" a fellow named Jaco de Swart announced that he was working on a book about the "history of dark matter." After all, why wait until somebody actually finds any?
Because the opportunities to make money from publishing such a book decline sharply if it is somehow proven not to be. Strike it while the hype is hot!
im going with what tesla, maxwell, heaviside, steinmetz, jj thompson all said. light requires a medium. null does not mean negative. the problem is how people think for instance light is not a speed but the maximum rate of induction of the medium.
Empirical, scientific experiments all demonstrate that waves require a medium. The idea of there not being an aether is pure supposition not backed by observable reality.
I want to take this opportunity to state my opposition to Einstein's GR. I noticed that Dr. Unzicker ended this broadcast by approving Einstein and calling him a "great scientist".
@@JohnRoach-jn4dg Dr Unziker is telling us as much he can. There is a powerful institution which is watching the academia. If you really interested to understand Space and Time I can suggest a book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" (Space/Time) cannot exist, because Space is passive, but Time is active propagating Dimension. They must exist separate.
Sabine is my favourite science communicator. I personally think DM is a crutch and eventually it will be sorted out that it was never needed. However with incomplete knowledge things like DM arise often.
@@cougar2013 Please be specific. I am a dissident, so do not assume that I am attacking your position. You are an autodidact. What have you learned yourself?
@@JohnRoach-jn4dg I have a physics PhD, and my thesis work was on neutrinos. In my case, I reach a new level of skepticism when money is involved. Science is really not that understandable to the masses, hence how easily people are fooled by sociology disguised as science. Therefore, the idea of “science communicators” just naturally morphs into shilling, because neither the communicator nor the audience knows what’s going on.
Sabine is all over the place, she criticizes everything, but she offers few constructive proposals. And she's less sceptic than she would like, see that last video where she swallows line and bait of the whole contemporary trans dogma without ever questioning it. She's an excellent representative of our time.
“Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.” - Fräulein sabine hoSSenfelder, 2021
I don't remember Sabine's video like that, in terms of the result. My gut says there was also a sarcastic "but" somewhere. Maybe too inconspicuous for once, I would have to look at it again to be sure.
Sabrine doesn't come down on the side of MOND, she merely says that of the currently existing major hypotheses she things MOND matches slightly better, and of you watch her videos she switches back and forth depending on the evidence at the time.
I don't know how people can think she supports MOND. She simply wants to follow the data. If the data shows MOND is real, great. If it continues to falsify MOND, fine. What she is against is the continued waste of money thrown at theories that haven't gone anywhere for 50 years.
I refer to Dark Matter as the Invisible Pink Unicorn which lives in my garage. I assure you it is there. And if you pay me several billion dollars I will be able to show it to you.
Hey dont knock invisible stuff. 2025 is the year that Invisible becones the new black. The reveal of the invisible particle ( scalar photon) that runs the universe - is coming soon.
dark matter is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. which model called for dark matter in the first place? that's the model that failed. whoever made the prediction that necessitated dark matter was either incorrect about gravity or the composition of the universe.
We all know that the early galaxies were created by the teapot that is orbiting around Jupiter and has been orbiting the Jupiter for many billions of years before Jupiter even existed.
That is the narrative. Distant spiral galaxies do not match predictions of CELESTIAL MECHANICS which is based on UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. I propose a rigorous test of universal gravitation to give the assumption an opportunity to fail - to be falsified.
Yes and no. It still can be disproved, which is more or less the reason it's postulated. It's based on the idea of trial and error, which is scientific, you just can't really believe in it but it helps search in the right places.
In many subject areas, Ms. Hossenfelder tends to forget the statements made in previous videos (e.g. climate change, future dangers). In other areas, critical facts are simply ignored (e.g. nuclear energy) or the topic itself is completely ignored (Liquid Sun, Cosmic Microwave Background). I have already asked myself whether she still edits her videos herself or just reads out other people's texts as a moderator.
@@christopherellis2663 Changing your mind without ever admitting that you once thought differently? That is not a scientific approach. Nor is ignoring theories and facts because you don't like them or they are controversial. Ms. Hossenfelder is just advocating that something should change in science. But then ignoring the beginnings of a paradigm shift in crucial areas seems hypocritical to me.
At 10:50 you mention Popper and one of his former students: Kuhn. I was wondering if you ever heard or read about his other student and if you had any opinion about him. His name is Feyerabend and I am referring specifically about his book "Against the Method".
When I first heard the term, I wondered if they were just replacing the word "ether" with it. Then some Russians stated they'd deduced that nutrinos had mass, vanishingly small, but it was there. Then I rememered PAM Dirac's "neutrino ocean" . . . then the definition of all stuff as pure motion in a plenum se cannot comprehend, but vortices were the primary pattern. Krafft and Hilgenberg were content with single vortices as having vanishingly small mass in the rings, but when coupled to another vortice in rolling contact, the equipotential point between them represented inertia of motion that would resist perturbations akin to how gyroscopes seem to have a will of their own . . . Krafft and Hilgenberg at least gave us atoms that could be visualized, could be logically organized to account for the periodic table and predicted stuff like super gravitation, invisibility of starlight outside the Earth's atmosphere, and more. Ott Christoph Hilgenberg Quantenzahlen, Wirbelring-Atommodelle und Heliumsechserring-Aufbauprinzip des Periodensystems der chemischen Elemente Translation: A Quantum Number, Vortex Atom Model and Helium Hexagonal Ring Construction Principle of the Periodic System of the Chemical Elements Über Strömungsversuche mit Senken und Quellen, die das Wesen der Schwerkraft grundlegend erklären Über den Magnus-Effekt, die experimentelle Bestätigung seiner Umkehrung und den Zusammenhang dieser Strömungseffekte mit meteorologischen, ballistischen und elektrischen Vorgängen Carl Frederick Krafft Ether and Matter The Ether and its Vortices
Is there any reason that electromagnetic forces and plasma physics, that seem to elegantly predict observations, keep being ignored? I can't understand why its not even mentioned, let alone investigated, challenged or falsified....
We are constantly discovering plasma filaments and electromagnetic fields tethering structures at all scales and taking the form of birkland currents that are replicated in lab experiments....it defies credulity that it doesn't even merit mention
It’s a mindset problem, which means they don’t want to see, or admit to what is wrong with their long held and beloved theories (Like The Standard Model). Which are basically wrong at the level of their fundamental assumptions. The fact that the gravitational force is 1.2 x 10^36 times weaker than the electric force between two electrons, means nothing to them, despite the Universe being around 99% plasm. I suspect wanton ignorance is at the heart of it, suggesting the alternative would be a bigger pill to swallow. The notion (meaning belief) that mathematics answers everything, if only we could discover the perfect formulae is at the heart of the problem. ‘You view the Universe through the face you bring to it’. Annon
@@plazma1215 To admit that electromagnetism is the dominant force in the Universe means all of them to admit that they are lairs. That's why they suppress the reason. There is a continuation of EU in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" I hope you will enjoy it.
Nobody can explain gravity, especially Einstein. Spacetime is an impossibility. Space is a three dimensional location in space. Time is a linear description of events. Einstein threw out physics in favor of mathematical hocus pocus.
I oppose Einstein, also. I agree with you. But Einstein was not alone. Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, Joseph Larmor, Hermann Minkowski, Gunner Nordstrom, Alexander Friedmann, George Lemaitre, Arthur Eddington, Max von Lue, maybe Max Abraham, all of Einstein's friends whom he mentioned as supportive.
That's an interesting perspective. So would would you consider in that our universe essentially just being 3D, and time nothing more than a abstract human mathematical measurement? aka just to account for the latency of a photon carrying information from one place to another in that 3D universe.
@@axle.student time doesn't exist - it's a human concept All Einstein 'proved' was that certain types of clock work differently under certain conditions - not that time itself changes
@axle.student in a way I suppose. My only point is that space and time are two distinct things, human abstractions or human constructions used to describe a perceived phenomenon. Space only describes the area around ourselves not even specific to the area beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Time is used to describe the lineage progression of events. To mash those two expressions together to form some hypothetical basis as a beginning explanation of the universe makes no sense to me. The cosmologists of today brings a quote to mind, "an unpopular theory requires extraordinary evidence whereas a popular theory requires only a show of hands as evidence".
Not only Einstein, have to trow out all academia! There is a new Physics knocking on our door. - The book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Obviously they is hiding it.
I listen to Astronomy Cast, which is the top astronomy podcast. Maybe I'm missing their subtlety, but they have no doubt that dark matter exists, possibly made of axions. It is nice that people are out offering the other side of the Dark Matter coin.
This is welcoming. She’s achieved a level of popularity that is competing with her level of understanding. Half the episodes she makes, I wonder if she’s reading a script for the first time. And her followers are ridiculously naive. Much ❤ Love 🌏🌎🌍☯️⚡️ Terra 🌞 Pax
I think you miss the irony in Hossenfelder's voice when she talks about Axions and says, "this could solve it", etc. She is not believing in any of this stuff, as one would know if one did not just watch a cherry-picked portion of a cherry-picked video of hers.
@@christopherellis2663 @christopherellis2663 Im not faulting you. As her popularity has grown, for the most part, the comment section under her videos are filled with people who 1. project their supposed intellectual superiority by defending the academic status quo, In other words the high priests of scientism. And that of 2. drones who are looking for someone to do their thinking for them. (Is the USA a democracy or a republic? A more interesting question would be is Scientism a democracy or a republic?) The example is given to show the quality is going down as the quantity goes up. Much ❤️ Love 🌏🌎🌍☯️⚡️ Terra 🌞 Pax 🎄🎅🏼🎁🍄🦌 Merry Christmas
I never hear physicists even talk about the change of the rate of causation due to the amount of gravity so it’s safe to say they aren’t even thinking about it.
Good explanation. For your confusion about Sabine's motivations, I think you'll find that money and views will help explain that. She has very clearly taken a turn in her style and content in the last year or two. She knows exactly what she's doing posting contradictory content
The moon orbits around Earth. But from a distance (from another star), one may think the moon orbits around the sun instead (with a wobble). The same is with earth, the sun and stars in the milkyway. They all have "wobbles" of some kind. Each star is also orbiting another, while orbiting the milkyway center. This changes all the velocities, especially at more distance from the galaxy center. And this fact is completely waved away in dark matter models. Astronomy is full with circular reasoning, due to historical assumptions. The astronomers do not have a good idea about the actual orbits, because it is too hard to measure for most stars. They just base the orbit on the dogma that the orbits are only about the center. This also related to the dogma about galaxy arms. These arms are clearly made by some underlying structure. Could be due to interacting orbits and invisible gassy material, or even beams from the galaxy center. But the dogma is that the arms are caused by ellipses. Completely based on dogmatic thinking, and not allowing other theories. Also, I have not yet seen rotation of galaxies related to redshift. From the few remarks that I read, the rotation seems independent of redshit. Which would mean that expansion is just an illusion. If you would correct for redshift-time without thinking, it may seem as if far-redshift galaxies would rotate faster than they really are. Giving the illusion of more dark matter. Dogmas creating more illusions. Or what modern astronomy has become.
@@yingyang1008 Thank you for your bravery to post such an unorthodox position. The Moon orbits the Earth. The Earth moves in an "inferior" revolution to the "superior" revolution of the Sun. These revolutions are synchronized at a 2:1 ratio. So, you are correct, " moon and sun . . . orbit the earth" This is the model that Aristarchus of Samos revised with ONE SIMPLE CHANGE. It is the model of Heraclides of Pontus (387 BC - 310 BC). I propose a gently revised model of Heraclides. If I were to label it as neo-Copernican, it would not generate the visceral kneejerk reaction. ALSO, I would restore the positioning of Copernicus when he positioned the Earth's planetary system in the CENTER of the ANISOTROPIC universe. No Kepler's elliptical revolutions. No Newton's Celestial Mechanics. Truly neo-Copernican.
The Electric Universe looks more and more attractive? What do we call a stream of charged particles? a wind? a current? And what is 30exp30 times more powerful than "Big" G? So even a sniff of a current will Dominate any gravitational effects. The problem is, you see, we cannot make any pretty mathematical equations with plasma. Ask the boys at CERN.
A surprisingly good comment. Let us laypeople just sit back and watch without rushing to take sides. Let the "nerds" just fight it out until truth is revealed.
@@drake_sterling I’m not smart enough to be a true nerd. I’m a reasonably good technician at best. And happy to have used some pretty nifty & complex gizmos they invented.
She's wants information through mathematical arguments. I don't think she would believe considered weak forces are the strong forces or there is an ambient pressure for mass or the speed of light. Doesn't compute like the last lost 50 years. Name the types of lensing you don't know. ruclips.net/video/YoBhXALZEqc/видео.html
I would not say that Sabine was 'pro MOND'. She pointed out that MOND was closer to fitting the galaxy halo gravitational lensing results, but that is not the same thing. I actually find she is quite neutral.
People have been criticizing these computer simulations since the 90's for all these exact reasons. They have an outcome they expect then tweak the program to generate that result. They aren't making predictions. When over and over again, observations contradict their models because their assumed outcome is wrong, they just tweak the simulation to fit the new expectations. Using a simulation to make the appearance of reality then claiming the details and methods of the simulation is the actual cause of reality is exactly the problem with string theory.
Let's review the assumption of UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. Let's give this assumption every opportunity to fail - to be falsified. The gravity phenomenon is actually the complex summation of major and minor causal agencies and gravity anomalies.
I see Dark Matter as a placeholder for something we don't know more about, mostly because we haven't had any experiment that has told us what it is. Until we come up with a better model it's what we use. If the Big Bang had been perfect then we probably wouldn't have had the universe we see today. So I don't rule out early large galaxies and even large black holes already shaped at the Big Bang. If we look at the distribution of mass in the visible universe it do look quite similar to some paint explosions that you can find here on RUclips, like what the Slo Mo Guys have made.
"Tell me that you don't understand Sabine without telling me that you don't understand Sabine"! She is very sarcastic and she comments what new paper come out, trying to explain at best what are the good or bad ideas behind it. Some papers are in favor of MOND, others are in favor of DM, some other talks about Axions or other strange particles. She just describes them trying to make some joke around it. Those are not Sabine's idea (at least as I've understood her, after watching many videos). So criticizing Sabine about one or the other theory she describe in the video is probably not hitting the target, try to find out who has made those claims and criticize them as Sabine does. But the best would be to ask her directly.
Einstein's theory has an approximation at the very base of it - a flat local space time (the part where "you can't determine if you are in free fall") which is, actually, never the case. And so it is only natural that the whole theory is also an approximation, visible especially in the long range where the errors of this approximation add up.
That is very nearly correct. You need to read Theoria Philosophae Naturalis. In Latin, preferably. It's really too bad that Magnetist Ken Wheeler is afraid of Outer Space. No fault there, though.
I absolutely love your videos and thank you for making them, but please decouple your mic from your desk or run a low pass filter on the audio to downplay the thumping.
Unzicker's presentation is helpful and instructive, thank you. I am thinking dark matter could actually turn out to be gravity waves themselves. Re: S.H youtube series, I used to leave many negative comments, but finally I decided to stop and try and grasp the basic ideas. I feel less critical after all. I believe she is communicating information from a complicated field. I would not otherwise receive her perspective given unique experience of a career physicist. I have great interest in reviewing this information.
Dark matter models? What models? I thought dark matter and dark energy, was collective terms for the gap in our knowledge? Meaning, we are simulating and also studying outer space and there are things we don't understand. You show a paper on MOND as well - but hasn't MOND been hilariously laughed out the door for being so poor?
Dear Sir: You have a right to your option and to constructive critique your fellow physicists work and presentations. However, ridiculing them is very disrespectful and unprofessional, unless you have personal vendetta against the physicist in question. Physicts is continuously evolving and progressing. Many of the cutting edge explorations and discoveries in current modern day physics are very difficult quantify and apply to current day industrial development. As the bridge between theoretical analyses with explanations and applied physical proofs/processes are in realm of art, speculation and the lack of human metal capacity to fully comprehend and understand what they witnessing and discovering. Regards: Adams
Thank you! The dark matter/energy theory is as useful as the chaos theory. It's like a heavy steel ball attached to one of your feet. Some get used to it, or even forget about it. Others are going in circles around it whilst believing they are going somewhere... Plasma cosmology is very interesting and has many explanations on different things. Furthermore, it can be studied by conducting experiments where you actually can see what happens, and repeat them as many times as you want to. Empirical science is the thing. Math is totally overrated, anyway. It deceived already too many clever people...
🙂 All this because theoretical physics is NOT science! A pile of unsubstantiated assumptions and misconceptions that build on and support each other;-) Dark matter is just the adaptation of observation to inaccurate theories and equations;-)
To save time and reduce BS I get most of my science news & views from three sources: Sabine Hossenfelder, Anton Petrov and Becky Smethurst. It's healthy to check out critics of their work, although it seems that SH attracts by far the most because of how she takes a position on issues rather that reporting merely that they exist.
Dark matter is a joke which I never believe all along, and it kind of reminds me the term 'aether' in the 19th century... it's weird to never have a glimpse of it nearby while it's so abundant in our universe, isn't it? It's pretty like The Emperor's New Clothes 2.0... 🤔
Gravitational lensing, particularly of the Bullet Cluster, shows deformation of spacetime bending light consistent with an increased amount of gravity. It's not just galactic rotation curves. Many observations are explained by the existence of some sort or mass that doesn't interact with electromagnetism.
@@thetimebinder If dark matter does exist and is claimed to be more abundant in our universe than nitrogen in air, then it should clump together to form some macroscopic objects around us as the gravitational pull is all it has..., but none is observed nearly a century. 🥱
@@drake_sterling Wasting time and huge amounts of money to search for nothing is by no means constructive to the world, and that's why I leave this comment to express my disappointment about such nonexistent hypothetical stuff. 😩
We all know dark matter likely not exist. We just need to collect more data to understand better of the gravitational effect before we can modify current theory of general relativity
if the Big Bang began with immense energy equivalent to mass, wouldn't time have passed more slowly due to the effects of intense gravity? so how can we give an age to the universe?
Hello there. The video by Sabine H. about Axions exposes new publications. In a neutral way : the facts, the concepts, explained for non-physicist (like me). At the end of the video, she gives "her 2 cents" about wimps and axions, and i guote "none of this motivation is particularly good" (motivation here relates to why people do research about wimps or axions). In the middle of the video, she shows a graphs presenting number of publications by year. The graph starts in 1978. So she is well aware that research about axions is nothing new : she even says and i quote that "2 years after they were introduced as a concept, they were dismissed". So, I would say that Pr Unzicker is totally biased (to say the least) when he reports excerpts of Sabine videos, his criticism does not stand 15 minutes of watching the original videos. I would say that what M. Unzicker is doing here really looks like some absurd ad hominem attack and it is really sad to watch.
You have understood nothing. Dr. Unz is passing off the scene, he's done (I hope not; he could contact me). As for Sabine, she is simply a pleasant voice. But you have learned nothing at all.
I've been watching some of your videos because, in my view, you have correctly pointed out how unscientific accepted theories have become. I'm not sure, but I think that John Macken has a very eye opening theory. His recent paper is free to download. I think that he believes that the cosmological constant is correct and it is not detectable until it has angular momentum. He says that when he starts with the assumption that everything is waves, that sometimes behave like particles, many! things fall into place. Please let me know what you think. Name of a video on RUclips is --- Livestream Conversation with John Macken There are two parts.
@@pentagrammaton6793 primary movement in the ether is kind of what Macken is saying. Primary movement in the ether can at times look like particles. I agree with that. Time is a measure, say of a frequency or hysteresis, but, of course, time is not a thing. A wave, shadow, meter, or space, are not things. Maybe you needed to point that out in case I was a believer in QM or GR? Do you think that matter is an illusion? Illusion or not, I can picture high energy light becoming matter or a particle. What is your definition of matter, with more details than just saying it's an illusion. Hoping you can teach me something, but I'm holding back too much, for my videos, for you to have any thing to correct.
In my view it's always a problem when she talks about things that are not physically related. For example sports. But physically I had nothing to complain. Therefore an interesting Video.
Facts only: DM makes clumps of about galaxy size or bigger. No clumps of star or planet size. Why? Are DM particles fermions, could it be Pauli's exclusion principle that limits their density. (If they are non-existent by design, stop trying to see them.)
Sabine left academia with some grudge attach how science methodology been perverted to bad science practice. Her main job today is to present science news so her video essay appears 4 to 5 times per week that insane rate for very niche science subject and if you remove technology part from science that is more narrow subject of theoretical (fundamental) physics. He been trapped in content creation, good, bad, neutral who cares most important people click on her video and watch and yeah in the end are sponsors who pay money how much views. RUclipsrs can be trapped in hamsters wheel (rat race) same as any profession from janitor to professor.
Found the climate change denier. She doesn't need to do it herself. That's what climate scientists are for. She has been critical of climate science when it's bad science. There is just a lot of good climate science to indicate both that the Earth is warming and that there is a significant human source of greenhouse gas. Science questions, but science also comes to conclusions through data. Questioning everything leads to total ignorance. It's fine to accept the current understanding while also looking to falsify it. Anthropogenic Climate Change is the best current explanation for the climate. If you can question it, but you cannot deny it.
You wannabe scientists should stop complaining about others... That's not how it works and your kindergarten, which attacks people like Ms. Hossenfelder, hasn't understood anything. This is just about getting people excited and questioning things, encouraging them to join science in the first place, to do research or research themselves... This is how science destroys itself, through people who treat things like that, when scientists should be the ones who are careful and speak fairly. Sabine's videos inspire and captivate, this video here just condemns, instead of saying what she always says, we are far from knowing everything and we won't discover very much... Of course only if we include everything possible...
Why do you call one black matter and one gravity when are the exact same thing? And why are you judging by things that happened billions of years ago these solar systems and galaxies were billions of years old.
good video again. honest, commentary, unafraid of not following the crowd. i have to add my belief that the average intellligence level of current participants in theoretical physics, especially cosmology has fallen to a very low level. yes the system produces people skilled at certain games of mathematical manipulation. but when these people are unable to detect their own circular reasoning , unfalsifiable theories, and ridiculous reliance on computer simulations with so many free parameters virtually any observational data can be matched, can we really call them intelligent? i don't think so. they function more like bureaucrats whose primary fumction is to keep a silly game going that has nothing to do with advancing knowledge.
Well merry Christmas & happy new year. When you have the time maybe force yourself into understanding what all the problems are of a nuke gone silly. Don't be distracted dragging the old dog bones of fission and fusion. That's a freaks way of saying they don't understand knowing the reason while never knowing they said it.
Perhaps the problem with science of late are due to the needs of researchers to pander to inclusion and diversity requirements to get funding. These must be skewing what is seen as acceptable in the results of that research or with whom or how it is accomplished.
With GR why do we need a new theory for gravity?? Because gravity is not predicting a blackhole singularity and galaxy rotation!!. Well this is not true. Instead of mass and energy bending space time which is mathemetically true but not intuitive, it is possible to think of gravity as the result of energy gradient. The variation of energy density in the universe(which includes mass) is the source of gravity using the same equations of GR but with different interpretations. A blackhole singularity doesn't hapen because leptons are transformed to radiation which is a gas and can take any pressure as it can exist in any density being a boson. Rotation curves is solved by considering the energy gradient from distant masses as Mach said it before. The gradient of distant masses pushes local masses to accelerate towards their centre of gravity. The value of G can be calculated from considering the mass and radius of the universe alone. for more see: “ A simple geodesic equation for gravity, electromagnetism and all sources of energy”
I have a theory that the water is what actually is more creating the gravity. I don't believe the core or the internal part of the earth is magna I believe it's water. And the lava is just caused by the friction of water on the bottom of the crust. Because everything is linked with water. And other than humans in life on this planet which you came from the water. It's the only evolution of water I've seen. But why does regular water stay the way it is the water we have today it's the same water from billions of years ago. Other than a few comments or something hitting the Earth we haven't had a new supply. It would explain gravity if you have two oceans going against each other. What's a couple other ingredients. Which I don't think humans are ready for. See I want to use the ocean to rebalance the planet. But I would need calculations on everything with the ocean so I don't screw up the gravity. But no matter what I'm guaranteeing that gravity of water act the same. They do the same thing water contains life gravity contains planets. There's a connection with water in all life I'm not sure what it is and I will figure it out. But I've always been hugely fascinated with gravity. And to me all the planets are floating in the ocean. The answers in front of you just got to quit all the war and slaughter and financial gain crap. Get rid of money and you'll find out what the future really can hold. But if I am right you could terraform planets with the water. Remember you're 70% water and you will get returned to the system. It's kind of funny it makes you billions of years old. But there is a design system of evolution. Intelligent design. The other thing and this is a theory, I don't think the core is iron, for some reason I think it's more of a neutronium bass. But I look at the planets as collapsing neutron stars. They act the same way. Let's see how far we can push the human brain.
Sabine explains her reasoning. You just shoot stuff down. You sound like a string theory apologist. Do you have any original research or discoveries to impact this or are you just some motormouth?
Æ just had to look this up: motorischer Mund oder Motormaul • Don't sweat the 'Æ' - it is short for the youTube channel which could revive Doktor Alexander Unzicker's fading voice, and make him a truly great physicist. But not without me. Allo, Doktor ist "IN" oder NICHT?
"Bullshit grows exponentially". I think you have discovered a universal principal here Dr. Unzicker. At least can we call it "Unzicker's hypothesis"? 😜
I love Dark Matter. Irrefutable proof that science is dead and replaced by mathemagics. The amount of so called pro science anti religious folks that i silence merely by asking: "Is Dark Matter falsifiable and if so how?"
Unzicker's Conjecture
@@sobeeaton5693 *Law
You are funny! Ever wonder what DM might be? Want to know? NOPE.
You know, if they just called dark matter "bullshit" or "filler" or even "filler bullshit", people would understand better what is it all about... I'd put a nice wager that our understanding of gravity at cosmological scales is simply flawed.
Well .... I heard the analogy of light bulbs in a tall apartment building at night. You can't really see the building, except for the lights in the windows. You "know" the building is there, something gives structure to have lights in the building...
I kinda think it's a shitty analogy... Or that false analogy fallacy...
" our understanding of gravity at cosmological scales is simply flawed."
And I suspect that could be partly because our understanding of electromagnetic effects at that scale is flawed. Charges play an enormous role. (and no, it's not that I'd think that gravity rises from electromagnetics, rather the electromagnetic effects are not correctly looked at at quantum level).
@@musaire are you just asserting this or is there a series of observations that imply this?
Look at my comment above. Macken seems to have a great theory. Thankfully no one has figured out what causes the force of gravity because I have; no equations needed. It is fractal up to the model of a galaxy, but the positions of the galaxies are very different; they don't fit my model. I have been preparing to make my first video.
@@musaire (and no, it's not that I'd think that gravity rises from electromagnetics,) Everything is electromagnetic! So, of course it does. What is your definition of matter? (our understanding of electromagnetic effects at that scale is flawed.) You've got that right! Sorry if I seem disrespectful, but it's just that quantum physics is so bad.
"The electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that propagate energy and travel through space in the form of waves" For waves to travel, there has to be something that is WAVING! So light doesn't have a speed; it has a rate of induction. Don't be confused by the fact that some photons behave like or become particles. Dark matter is just quantum physicists renaming something that they were denying the existence of. Admitting that they were wrong would make them seem stupid, but no, they discovered it!!!! Dollard? -- the speed of light is the maximum hysteresis of the ether. OMG I said it, a taboo word in the quantum religion.
In the August edition of "Physics Today" a fellow named Jaco de Swart announced that he was working on a book about the "history of dark matter." After all, why wait until somebody actually finds any?
Because the opportunities to make money from publishing such a book decline sharply if it is somehow proven not to be. Strike it while the hype is hot!
Sounds better than E R Burroghs' John Carter of Mars pulp. Care to KNOW what DM is? How will you find out?
One thing I really like about Sabine is she can explain complex science to the public without coming off as a condescending snob.
@@Sarcasmarkus I was going to write "that was sarcasm right?" Then I saw your name
@@Sarcasmarkus 😂🤣👍
Also if you watch her videos yourself, she never seems to be arguing what this guy claims that she’s arguing.
hahahahahahaha :-)
She also says that Gravity is not a force. No snobbery there!
What did Einstein say? "There are two things, which are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And with the universe i am not sure."
And the infinite stupidity about the infinities of the universe...
And you prove it.
I am not a physicist just one of the RUclips masses. I am a big fan of Sabine's videos. To quote Einstein on his deathbed, "It just doesn't matter."
You are so right! You are no physicist; that requires thinking.
im going with what tesla, maxwell, heaviside, steinmetz, jj thompson all said. light requires a medium. null does not mean negative. the problem is how people think for instance light is not a speed but the maximum rate of induction of the medium.
Empirical, scientific experiments all demonstrate that waves require a medium. The idea of there not being an aether is pure supposition not backed by observable reality.
Ken wheeler deciple I see :)
Michelson Morley experiment is enough to say you are wrong .
Ugh, who invited the tinfoil hat people in here?
But Michelson and Morley showed that light can't use a medium.
I have a theory for a new dark matter particle. It’s called the Nonexistion.
Scott Adams has the cartoon strip, DILBERT. (a pun on "Albert"?) His dog character explored that very concept.
As we know, matter is concentrated energy, and energy is force. Hence . . . dark matter = dark energy = dark force = force of darkness.
🎉🎉🎉
The most ancient, puerile, sheiß-kopf joke of all. Gitoutatheya
Do you mean non-existence?
i recently saw a quote where Einstein was unsure if his GR and Q theories would survive further scrutiny, yet anyone who dares is ridiculed
I want to take this opportunity to state my opposition to Einstein's GR. I noticed that Dr. Unzicker ended this broadcast by approving Einstein and calling him a "great scientist".
@@JohnRoach-jn4dg Dr Unziker is telling us as much he can. There is a powerful institution which is watching the academia. If you really interested to understand Space and Time I can suggest a book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" (Space/Time) cannot exist, because Space is passive, but Time is active propagating Dimension. They must exist separate.
Of course they didn't "survive scrutiny." Good comment. They sure didn't survive MY scrutiny.
*Dark Matter is real* -------- It is what Father Christmas uses ----------- *to power his sleigh* ☺
But it only works on Christmas eve.
@@guytech7310 for a whole 48 hours of christmas eve -- starting from Kiribati and traveling east along the IDL. 🙂
Sabine is my favourite science communicator. I personally think DM is a crutch and eventually it will be sorted out that it was never needed. However with incomplete knowledge things like DM arise often.
Why do you still like her? She sold out for money. I recommend not favoring any “science communicator”. Learn the science yourself.
@@cougar2013 Ditto, Sabine is on the right path, but she ain't there yet, she'll get there eventually in another 10~20 years.
@@MatthewHolevinski Matthew, please be specific. I am a dissident, so do not assume that I am attacking your position.
@@cougar2013 Please be specific. I am a dissident, so do not assume that I am attacking your position. You are an autodidact. What have you learned yourself?
@@JohnRoach-jn4dg I have a physics PhD, and my thesis work was on neutrinos. In my case, I reach a new level of skepticism when money is involved.
Science is really not that understandable to the masses, hence how easily people are fooled by sociology disguised as science. Therefore, the idea of “science communicators” just naturally morphs into shilling, because neither the communicator nor the audience knows what’s going on.
Sabine is all over the place, she criticizes everything, but she offers few constructive proposals. And she's less sceptic than she would like, see that last video where she swallows line and bait of the whole contemporary trans dogma without ever questioning it. She's an excellent representative of our time.
“Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.”
- Fräulein sabine hoSSenfelder, 2021
@ how could i forget such jewel
and she likes Musk
Sabine is making the money while you are left in the gutter. Good comment.
I don't remember Sabine's video like that, in terms of the result. My gut says there was also a sarcastic "but" somewhere. Maybe too inconspicuous for once, I would have to look at it again to be sure.
No, Dr. Unzicker is correct to pillory her. She is nothing but a money pachinko. NOT a scientist.
Sabrine doesn't come down on the side of MOND, she merely says that of the currently existing major hypotheses she things MOND matches slightly better, and of you watch her videos she switches back and forth depending on the evidence at the time.
I don't know how people can think she supports MOND. She simply wants to follow the data. If the data shows MOND is real, great. If it continues to falsify MOND, fine.
What she is against is the continued waste of money thrown at theories that haven't gone anywhere for 50 years.
So, YOU think it is some kind of debate. DZAEZUZ H K-PYCT
I refer to Dark Matter as the Invisible Pink Unicorn which lives in my garage.
I assure you it is there.
And if you pay me several billion dollars I will be able to show it to you.
Would you accept a Zimbabwe $100T reserve note? I need the change back of course!
And after you take billions from the public to only fail to discover DM. You will just ask for many billions more to build bigger instruments.
Hey dont knock invisible stuff. 2025 is the year that Invisible becones the new black. The reveal of the invisible particle ( scalar photon) that runs the universe - is coming soon.
Is the early universe in the room with us now?? Cannot stand the fairy magic bs that's poisoned science. Thanks for everything you do Alex!
Yes, all the dragons shall be slain, but not by Dr. Unzicker.
dark matter is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. which model called for dark matter in the first place? that's the model that failed. whoever made the prediction that necessitated dark matter was either incorrect about gravity or the composition of the universe.
They are still using Newton's physics for some reason.
It is not that G is wrong, is that it is monopolar. Where does space BEND INTO? Where's the counterforce? No electroforce there, eh?
Thanks for pointing out the absurdity plaguing the subject and the blatant unwillingness of those involved to address it.
We all know that the early galaxies were created by the teapot that is orbiting around Jupiter and has been orbiting the Jupiter for many billions of years before Jupiter even existed.
In my opinion dark matter is a variable invented to make outdated models match observations. So, baloney. What do you all think?
Free parameters!! That's the name
Yes the video creator understands. Fiddling with the data, and the religion of dark matter and energy
That is the narrative. Distant spiral galaxies do not match predictions of CELESTIAL MECHANICS which is based on UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. I propose a rigorous test of universal gravitation to give the assumption an opportunity to fail - to be falsified.
Yes and no. It still can be disproved, which is more or less the reason it's postulated. It's based on the idea of trial and error, which is scientific, you just can't really believe in it but it helps search in the right places.
In many subject areas, Ms. Hossenfelder tends to forget the statements made in previous videos (e.g. climate change, future dangers). In other areas, critical facts are simply ignored (e.g. nuclear energy) or the topic itself is completely ignored (Liquid Sun, Cosmic Microwave Background).
I have already asked myself whether she still edits her videos herself or just reads out other people's texts as a moderator.
Refreshing the screen with new data. Critical commentary does not support the topic
@@christopherellis2663
Changing your mind without ever admitting that you once thought differently? That is not a scientific approach. Nor is ignoring theories and facts because you don't like them or they are controversial.
Ms. Hossenfelder is just advocating that something should change in science. But then ignoring the beginnings of a paradigm shift in crucial areas seems hypocritical to me.
@@samtigernotiger3886 This may have changed, but I do believe it is MRS. H.; she has two children I think.
@@drake_sterling
Is this relevant in any physical way? Does science work differently for mothers?
At 10:50 you mention Popper and one of his former students: Kuhn. I was wondering if you ever heard or read about his other student and if you had any opinion about him. His name is Feyerabend and I am referring specifically about his book "Against the Method".
You must actually think that Unzicker would care. WOW, you should be in the Church somewhere.
When I first heard the term, I wondered if they were just replacing the word "ether" with it. Then some Russians stated they'd deduced that nutrinos had mass, vanishingly small, but it was there. Then I rememered PAM Dirac's "neutrino ocean" . . . then the definition of all stuff as pure motion in a plenum se cannot comprehend, but vortices were the primary pattern. Krafft and Hilgenberg were content with single vortices as having vanishingly small mass in the rings, but when coupled to another vortice in rolling contact, the equipotential point between them represented inertia of motion that would resist perturbations akin to how gyroscopes seem to have a will of their own . . . Krafft and Hilgenberg at least gave us atoms that could be visualized, could be logically organized to account for the periodic table and predicted stuff like super gravitation, invisibility of starlight outside the Earth's atmosphere, and more.
Ott Christoph Hilgenberg
Quantenzahlen, Wirbelring-Atommodelle und Heliumsechserring-Aufbauprinzip des Periodensystems der chemischen Elemente
Translation: A Quantum Number, Vortex Atom Model and Helium Hexagonal Ring Construction Principle of the Periodic System of the Chemical Elements
Über Strömungsversuche mit Senken und Quellen, die das Wesen der Schwerkraft grundlegend erklären
Über den Magnus-Effekt, die experimentelle Bestätigung seiner Umkehrung und den Zusammenhang dieser Strömungseffekte mit meteorologischen, ballistischen und elektrischen Vorgängen
Carl Frederick Krafft
Ether and Matter
The Ether and its Vortices
Is there any reason that electromagnetic forces and plasma physics, that seem to elegantly predict observations, keep being ignored? I can't understand why its not even mentioned, let alone investigated, challenged or falsified....
We are constantly discovering plasma filaments and electromagnetic fields tethering structures at all scales and taking the form of birkland currents that are replicated in lab experiments....it defies credulity that it doesn't even merit mention
To deny our species the stars. And no i am not being flippant.
@@pariahpariah4858 CC studies make no mention of the sun... let that sink in.
It’s a mindset problem, which means they don’t want to see, or admit to what is wrong with their long held and beloved theories (Like The Standard Model). Which are basically wrong at the level of their fundamental assumptions. The fact that the gravitational force is 1.2 x 10^36 times weaker than the electric force between two electrons, means nothing to them, despite the Universe being around 99% plasm. I suspect wanton ignorance is at the heart of it, suggesting the alternative would be a bigger pill to swallow. The notion (meaning belief) that mathematics answers everything, if only we could discover the perfect formulae is at the heart of the problem. ‘You view the Universe through the face you bring to it’. Annon
@@plazma1215 To admit that electromagnetism is the dominant force in the Universe means all of them to admit that they are lairs. That's why they suppress the reason. There is a continuation of EU in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" I hope you will enjoy it.
Nobody can explain gravity, especially Einstein. Spacetime is an impossibility. Space is a three dimensional location in space. Time is a linear description of events. Einstein threw out physics in favor of mathematical hocus pocus.
I oppose Einstein, also. I agree with you. But Einstein was not alone. Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, Joseph Larmor, Hermann Minkowski, Gunner Nordstrom, Alexander Friedmann, George Lemaitre, Arthur Eddington, Max von Lue, maybe Max Abraham, all of Einstein's friends whom he mentioned as supportive.
That's an interesting perspective.
So would would you consider in that our universe essentially just being 3D, and time nothing more than a abstract human mathematical measurement? aka just to account for the latency of a photon carrying information from one place to another in that 3D universe.
@@axle.student time doesn't exist - it's a human concept
All Einstein 'proved' was that certain types of clock work differently under certain conditions - not that time itself changes
@axle.student in a way I suppose. My only point is that space and time are two distinct things, human abstractions or human constructions used to describe a perceived phenomenon. Space only describes the area around ourselves not even specific to the area beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Time is used to describe the lineage progression of events. To mash those two expressions together to form some hypothetical basis as a beginning explanation of the universe makes no sense to me.
The cosmologists of today brings a quote to mind, "an unpopular theory requires extraordinary evidence whereas a popular theory requires only a show of hands as evidence".
@@markkar4663 "Spacetime is an impossibility". I counter that with the statement "Spacetime is a possibility".
Her fans praise her unfalsifiably.
All you have to do is throw out Einstein and you don't need dark matter because everything works perfectly.
Can i be more precise on your behalf? Throw out all physics post 1927 Copenhagen conference. It was utterly fraudulent there after
Not only Einstein, have to trow out all academia! There is a new Physics knocking on our door. - The book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Obviously they is hiding it.
What do you think of Sabine's proposal for a new "Physics Underground"? Could you and Sabine create a new video on that topic? Thanks.
I'd be for that for sure.
It'll be kicking off in 2025 - if I have any influence in the matter.
Reply on behalf of Mrs. H and Dr. U. : NO
she just did a interview advocating for a new group of free thinkers
I listen to Astronomy Cast, which is the top astronomy podcast. Maybe I'm missing their subtlety, but they have no doubt that dark matter exists, possibly made of axions. It is nice that people are out offering the other side of the Dark Matter coin.
Incredible level of confusion; thanks for sharing.
This is welcoming. She’s achieved a level of popularity that is competing with her level of understanding.
Half the episodes she makes, I wonder if she’s reading a script for the first time.
And her followers are ridiculously naive.
Much ❤ Love
🌏🌎🌍☯️⚡️
Terra 🌞 Pax
I think you miss the irony in Hossenfelder's voice when she talks about Axions and says, "this could solve it", etc. She is not believing in any of this stuff, as one would know if one did not just watch a cherry-picked portion of a cherry-picked video of hers.
I am not naive. You are silly
@@christopherellis2663 Correct on the second clause.
Remarkable how few viewers notice Dr. A Unzicker, who is actually doing the broadcast. Or... is he?
@@christopherellis2663
@christopherellis2663
Im not faulting you.
As her popularity has grown, for the most part, the comment section under her videos are filled with people who 1. project their supposed intellectual superiority by defending the academic status quo, In other words the high priests of scientism.
And that of 2. drones who are looking for someone to do their thinking for them.
(Is the USA a democracy or a republic?
A more interesting question would be is Scientism a democracy or a republic?)
The example is given to show the quality is going down as the quantity goes up.
Much ❤️ Love
🌏🌎🌍☯️⚡️
Terra 🌞 Pax
🎄🎅🏼🎁🍄🦌
Merry Christmas
I never hear physicists even talk about the change of the rate of causation due to the amount of gravity so it’s safe to say they aren’t even thinking about it.
That's actually not bad, what you just said. Ever hear of a Croatian Jesuit priest who discovered the Bohr Atom in 1745?
Mike Disney reminded me of the evolutionists’ model for the formation of the eye. They begin with a light sensitive cell.
Good explanation. For your confusion about Sabine's motivations, I think you'll find that money and views will help explain that. She has very clearly taken a turn in her style and content in the last year or two. She knows exactly what she's doing posting contradictory content
You are one of the two most astute observers here.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
You really should tag Sabina so she can respond, clarify, or learn from your critique.
Since i'm always thinking, how many "times" is that ?
The moon orbits around Earth. But from a distance (from another star), one may think the moon orbits around the sun instead (with a wobble). The same is with earth, the sun and stars in the milkyway. They all have "wobbles" of some kind.
Each star is also orbiting another, while orbiting the milkyway center. This changes all the velocities, especially at more distance from the galaxy center. And this fact is completely waved away in dark matter models.
Astronomy is full with circular reasoning, due to historical assumptions. The astronomers do not have a good idea about the actual orbits, because it is too hard to measure for most stars. They just base the orbit on the dogma that the orbits are only about the center.
This also related to the dogma about galaxy arms. These arms are clearly made by some underlying structure. Could be due to interacting orbits and invisible gassy material, or even beams from the galaxy center. But the dogma is that the arms are caused by ellipses. Completely based on dogmatic thinking, and not allowing other theories.
Also, I have not yet seen rotation of galaxies related to redshift. From the few remarks that I read, the rotation seems independent of redshit. Which would mean that expansion is just an illusion. If you would correct for redshift-time without thinking, it may seem as if far-redshift galaxies would rotate faster than they really are. Giving the illusion of more dark matter. Dogmas creating more illusions. Or what modern astronomy has become.
moon and sun are the same size and orbit the earth
@@yingyang1008 Thank you for your bravery to post such an unorthodox position. The Moon orbits the Earth. The Earth moves in an "inferior" revolution to the "superior" revolution of the Sun. These revolutions are synchronized at a 2:1 ratio. So, you are correct, " moon and sun . . . orbit the earth" This is the model that Aristarchus of Samos revised with ONE SIMPLE CHANGE. It is the model of Heraclides of Pontus (387 BC - 310 BC). I propose a gently revised model of Heraclides. If I were to label it as neo-Copernican, it would not generate the visceral kneejerk reaction. ALSO, I would restore the positioning of Copernicus when he positioned the Earth's planetary system in the CENTER of the ANISOTROPIC universe. No Kepler's elliptical revolutions. No Newton's Celestial Mechanics. Truly neo-Copernican.
I would recommend you to scientific pursuit. Good show.
"Dark Matter" sounds really cool and if something sounds THAT cool it's probably fake
How many angels ballroom dancing on the head of a pin advocate for dark matter as an explanation for the galactic rotational anomaly?
All the ones in your nose. Keep it coming, hoi poloi!!!
Sabine is an attention grabber. she will make videos for subscribers and likes, rather than straight-talking th facts.
The Electric Universe looks more and more attractive?
What do we call a stream of charged particles?
a wind?
a current?
And what is 30exp30 times more powerful than "Big" G?
So even a sniff of a current will Dominate any gravitational effects.
The problem is, you see, we cannot make any pretty mathematical equations with plasma.
Ask the boys at CERN.
Think twice? I have a hard enough time thinking once.
I think nerds battling nerds is a good thing.
A surprisingly good comment. Let us laypeople just sit back and watch without rushing to take sides. Let the "nerds" just fight it out until truth is revealed.
Then join, wisearse
@@antonk.653 Yep, that’s exactly what I meant. I admire nerds. They’re vital for real progress.
@@drake_sterling I’m not smart enough to be a true nerd. I’m a reasonably good technician at best. And happy to have used some pretty nifty & complex gizmos they invented.
She's wants information through mathematical arguments. I don't think she would believe considered weak forces are the strong forces or there is an ambient pressure for mass or the speed of light. Doesn't compute like the last lost 50 years. Name the types of lensing you don't know. ruclips.net/video/YoBhXALZEqc/видео.html
You may want to try thinking BEFORE you type.
I would not say that Sabine was 'pro MOND'. She pointed out that MOND was closer to fitting the galaxy halo gravitational lensing results, but that is not the same thing. I actually find she is quite neutral.
Michelson and Morley had the answer right in front of their noses, we call it gravity.
The theoretical explanation of Gravity is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
People have been criticizing these computer simulations since the 90's for all these exact reasons.
They have an outcome they expect then tweak the program to generate that result. They aren't making predictions. When over and over again, observations contradict their models because their assumed outcome is wrong, they just tweak the simulation to fit the new expectations.
Using a simulation to make the appearance of reality then claiming the details and methods of the simulation is the actual cause of reality is exactly the problem with string theory.
Let's review the assumption of UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. Let's give this assumption every opportunity to fail - to be falsified. The gravity phenomenon is actually the complex summation of major and minor causal agencies and gravity anomalies.
I would pick a theory involving anti matter over one based on dark matter, if there were one.
The Universe is Bifurcating.
@@jamesohara4295 hey hey, this is a family friendly channel
@@murb2586 Throw in a couple of Puppies with Santa hats on :)
I see Dark Matter as a placeholder for something we don't know more about, mostly because we haven't had any experiment that has told us what it is.
Until we come up with a better model it's what we use.
If the Big Bang had been perfect then we probably wouldn't have had the universe we see today. So I don't rule out early large galaxies and even large black holes already shaped at the Big Bang.
If we look at the distribution of mass in the visible universe it do look quite similar to some paint explosions that you can find here on RUclips, like what the Slo Mo Guys have made.
As I read through comments like this, I wonder, "Do these people even know what led to the conjecture of DM?" I don't sense any understanding in you.
"Tell me that you don't understand Sabine without telling me that you don't understand Sabine"!
She is very sarcastic and she comments what new paper come out, trying to explain at best what are the good or bad ideas behind it.
Some papers are in favor of MOND, others are in favor of DM, some other talks about Axions or other strange particles. She just describes them trying to make some joke around it.
Those are not Sabine's idea (at least as I've understood her, after watching many videos). So criticizing Sabine about one or the other theory she describe in the video is probably not hitting the target, try to find out who has made those claims and criticize them as Sabine does.
But the best would be to ask her directly.
Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve” is a quote by Isaac Newton that appears in his Principia (1687):
That's not bad at all. Now translate it to the solution vector. Anyone, including Alexander here, can just squat and WHINE.
Sabine seems to be all over the place.
She has some financial backing and pushing at the same oligarchy that is promoting climatism as the new faith.
Einstein's theory has an approximation at the very base of it - a flat local space time (the part where "you can't determine if you are in free fall") which is, actually, never the case. And so it is only natural that the whole theory is also an approximation, visible especially in the long range where the errors of this approximation add up.
You have a good point. Pun. But it is not caustic. Clue for you there - superpun. Very good comment!
I just finished Kuhn's book which is funny since I actually bought it in the 1970's. It is still as relevant today as it was then.
Dark Matter - The Phlogiston of our time.
Phlogiston is going to make a serious comeback in 2025.
@@carparkmartian2193 I personally can't wait.
Galactic scale rotating magnetic fields need to be addressed, ignoring them is where we are at.
That is very nearly correct. You need to read Theoria Philosophae Naturalis. In Latin, preferably.
It's really too bad that Magnetist Ken Wheeler is afraid of Outer Space. No fault there, though.
I absolutely love your videos and thank you for making them, but please decouple your mic from your desk or run a low pass filter on the audio to downplay the thumping.
Unzicker's presentation is helpful and instructive, thank you. I am thinking dark matter could actually turn out to be gravity waves themselves. Re: S.H youtube series, I used to leave many negative comments, but finally I decided to stop and try and grasp the basic ideas. I feel less critical after all. I believe she is communicating information from a complicated field. I would not otherwise receive her perspective given unique experience of a career physicist. I have great interest in reviewing this information.
Hyvää Joulua ja kiitos.
Dark matter models? What models? I thought dark matter and dark energy, was collective terms for the gap in our knowledge? Meaning, we are simulating and also studying outer space and there are things we don't understand.
You show a paper on MOND as well - but hasn't MOND been hilariously laughed out the door for being so poor?
she said we have no data - the paper was a theory
Dear Sir:
You have a right to your option and to constructive critique your fellow physicists work and presentations.
However, ridiculing them is very disrespectful and unprofessional, unless you have personal vendetta against the physicist in question.
Physicts is continuously evolving and progressing. Many of the cutting edge explorations and discoveries in current modern day physics are
very difficult quantify and apply to current day industrial development. As the bridge between theoretical analyses with explanations and applied physical proofs/processes
are in realm of art, speculation and the lack of human metal capacity to fully comprehend and understand what they witnessing and discovering.
Regards: Adams
There is nothing wrong in him calling out someone who contradict themselves.
Anyone who starts, "Dear Sir:" is of that well-known juvenile sort. Bye-bye, little one...
Thank you! The dark matter/energy theory is as useful as the chaos theory. It's like a heavy steel ball attached to one of your feet. Some get used to it, or even forget about it. Others are going in circles around it whilst believing they are going somewhere... Plasma cosmology is very interesting and has many explanations on different things. Furthermore, it can be studied by conducting experiments where you actually can see what happens, and repeat them as many times as you want to. Empirical science is the thing. Math is totally overrated, anyway. It deceived already too many clever people...
That's the saddest wail I've heard in a while. Condolences.
When will the scientific community learn models are highly inaccurate. Go play with tree (3) or gravastars.
🙂
All this because theoretical physics is NOT science! A pile of unsubstantiated assumptions and misconceptions that build on and support each other;-)
Dark matter is just the adaptation of observation to inaccurate theories and equations;-)
To save time and reduce BS I get most of my science news & views from three sources: Sabine Hossenfelder, Anton Petrov and Becky Smethurst. It's healthy to check out critics of their work, although it seems that SH attracts by far the most because of how she takes a position on issues rather that reporting merely that they exist.
Dark matter is a joke which I never believe all along, and it kind of reminds me the term 'aether' in the 19th century... it's weird to never have a glimpse of it nearby while it's so abundant in our universe, isn't it? It's pretty like The Emperor's New Clothes 2.0... 🤔
Gravitational lensing, particularly of the Bullet Cluster, shows deformation of spacetime bending light consistent with an increased amount of gravity. It's not just galactic rotation curves. Many observations are explained by the existence of some sort or mass that doesn't interact with electromagnetism.
@@thetimebinder If dark matter does exist and is claimed to be more abundant in our universe than nitrogen in air, then it should clump together to form some macroscopic objects around us as the gravitational pull is all it has..., but none is observed nearly a century. 🥱
@@thetimebinder stellar atmospheric lensing of light.
Afterwards, did you think your comment constructive in any way? I'll bet you never looked back.
@@drake_sterling Wasting time and huge amounts of money to search for nothing is by no means constructive to the world, and that's why I leave this comment to express my disappointment about such nonexistent hypothetical stuff. 😩
She doesnt chose if the paper that comes out is pro or against dark matter, slop must flow regardless
We all know dark matter likely not exist. We just need to collect more data to understand better of the gravitational effect before we can modify current theory of general relativity
Uh-oh...bullsh*t gets real. Unzicker vs Hossenfelder 🥊🥊
the best video was the one where she said the United states was a Democracy....what a complete bunch of BS that was!
if the Big Bang began with immense energy equivalent to mass, wouldn't time have passed more slowly due to the effects of intense gravity? so how can we give an age to the universe?
No bbt because bbt scam
Hello there. The video by Sabine H. about Axions exposes new publications. In a neutral way : the facts, the concepts, explained for non-physicist (like me). At the end of the video, she gives "her 2 cents" about wimps and axions, and i guote "none of this motivation is particularly good" (motivation here relates to why people do research about wimps or axions). In the middle of the video, she shows a graphs presenting number of publications by year. The graph starts in 1978. So she is well aware that research about axions is nothing new : she even says and i quote that "2 years after they were introduced as a concept, they were dismissed". So, I would say that Pr Unzicker is totally biased (to say the least) when he reports excerpts of Sabine videos, his criticism does not stand 15 minutes of watching the original videos. I would say that what M. Unzicker is doing here really looks like some absurd ad hominem attack and it is really sad to watch.
You have understood nothing. Dr. Unz is passing off the scene, he's done (I hope not; he could contact me).
As for Sabine, she is simply a pleasant voice. But you have learned nothing at all.
@@drake_sterling could you elaborate ? I see nothing in your writing that qualifies as any kind of argumentation. Regards
Honestly, unicorns have more credibility than dark matter
Like husband and wife arguing. 🤭
I've been watching some of your videos because, in my view, you have correctly pointed out how unscientific accepted theories have become. I'm not sure, but I think that John Macken has a very eye opening theory. His recent paper is free to download. I think that he believes that the cosmological constant is correct and it is not detectable until it has angular momentum. He says that when he starts with the assumption that everything is waves, that sometimes behave like particles, many! things fall into place. Please let me know what you think. Name of a video on RUclips is --- Livestream Conversation with John Macken There are two parts.
Point particles are illusions; all things that exist are reducible to primary movement in the ether, and time is a result of those motions.
@@pentagrammaton6793 primary movement in the ether is kind of what Macken is saying. Primary movement in the ether can at times look like particles. I agree with that. Time is a measure, say of a frequency or hysteresis, but, of course, time is not a thing. A wave, shadow, meter, or space, are not things. Maybe you needed to point that out in case I was a believer in QM or GR? Do you think that matter is an illusion? Illusion or not, I can picture high energy light becoming matter or a particle.
What is your definition of matter, with more details than just saying it's an illusion. Hoping you can teach me something, but I'm holding back too much, for my videos, for you to have any thing to correct.
Welcome to Unzicker's cry station. But hold your opinion.
In my view it's always a problem when she talks about things that are not physically related. For example sports. But physically I had nothing to complain. Therefore an interesting Video.
Gerrard Hickson's "Kings Dethroned" 1922, is a great read, a real eye opener.
What a marvelous place for an advertisement. Good luck on your crusade.
Perhaps take note of Elon Musks comment that the Universe is not built using logic...
This channel should get more subscribers.
No, it should get more solutions.
Facts only: DM makes clumps of about galaxy size or bigger. No clumps of star or planet size. Why?
Are DM particles fermions, could it be Pauli's exclusion principle that limits their density.
(If they are non-existent by design, stop trying to see them.)
If you close your eyes, then yes, maybe. What though if you are in a COMA? Take yer time...
Danke für die deutsche K.I.-Tonspur! Volle Weihnacht 🎉
🎯💢 𝐠𝐄ŕⓜ𝔸η𝕪 ᶠ𝕆𝕣 𝔾єℝ𝓶𝓪ᶰs ☯😳
Sabine left academia with some grudge attach how science methodology been perverted to bad science practice. Her main job today is to present science news so her video essay appears 4 to 5 times per week that insane rate for very niche science subject and if you remove technology part from science that is more narrow subject of theoretical (fundamental) physics. He been trapped in content creation, good, bad, neutral who cares most important people click on her video and watch and yeah in the end are sponsors who pay money how much views. RUclipsrs can be trapped in hamsters wheel (rat race) same as any profession from janitor to professor.
Good comment. Well thought out.
I noticed that Frau Hossenfelder has become increasingly addicted to YT views.
I like Sabine, but she falls for the climate hysteria without even trying to analyze it herself.
@@FelonyVideos that's exactly why I stopped watching her content. Science questions everything, even if it's popular.
Found the climate change denier. She doesn't need to do it herself. That's what climate scientists are for. She has been critical of climate science when it's bad science. There is just a lot of good climate science to indicate both that the Earth is warming and that there is a significant human source of greenhouse gas.
Science questions, but science also comes to conclusions through data. Questioning everything leads to total ignorance. It's fine to accept the current understanding while also looking to falsify it. Anthropogenic Climate Change is the best current explanation for the climate. If you can question it, but you cannot deny it.
So do you
@@WeighedWilson yeah; she's crying to get you back isn't she
@@drake_sterling thanks for showing that you're a child
Is popper correct 🤔, not so much. Peace ✌️ 😎.
You wannabe scientists should stop complaining about others... That's not how it works and your kindergarten, which attacks people like Ms. Hossenfelder, hasn't understood anything. This is just about getting people excited and questioning things, encouraging them to join science in the first place, to do research or research themselves... This is how science destroys itself, through people who treat things like that, when scientists should be the ones who are careful and speak fairly. Sabine's videos inspire and captivate, this video here just condemns, instead of saying what she always says, we are far from knowing everything and we won't discover very much... Of course only if we include everything possible...
Nor does anything work on your regressive regression.
Why do you call one black matter and one gravity when are the exact same thing? And why are you judging by things that happened billions of years ago these solar systems and galaxies were billions of years old.
good video again. honest, commentary, unafraid of not following the crowd. i have to add my belief that the average intellligence level of current participants in theoretical physics, especially cosmology has fallen to a very low level. yes the system produces people skilled at certain games of mathematical manipulation. but when these people are unable to detect their own circular reasoning , unfalsifiable theories, and ridiculous reliance on computer simulations with so many free parameters virtually any observational data can be matched, can we really call them intelligent? i don't think so. they function more like bureaucrats whose primary fumction is to keep a silly game going that has nothing to do with advancing knowledge.
You are living proof of your own wisdom.
Well merry Christmas & happy new year. When you have the time maybe force yourself into understanding what all the problems are of a nuke gone silly. Don't be distracted dragging the old dog bones of fission and fusion. That's a freaks way of saying they don't understand knowing the reason while never knowing they said it.
Perhaps the problem with science of late are due to the needs of researchers to pander to inclusion and diversity requirements to get funding. These must be skewing what is seen as acceptable in the results of that research or with whom or how it is accomplished.
Can't hear you!
With GR why do we need a new theory for gravity?? Because gravity is not predicting a blackhole singularity and galaxy rotation!!. Well this is not true. Instead of mass and energy bending space time which is mathemetically true but not intuitive, it is possible to think of gravity as the result of energy gradient. The variation of energy density in the universe(which includes mass) is the source of gravity using the same equations of GR but with different interpretations. A blackhole singularity doesn't hapen because leptons are transformed to radiation which is a gas and can take any pressure as it can exist in any density being a boson. Rotation curves is solved by considering the energy gradient from distant masses as Mach said it before. The gradient of distant masses pushes local masses to accelerate towards their centre of gravity. The value of G can be calculated from considering the mass and radius of the universe alone. for more see:
“ A simple geodesic equation for gravity, electromagnetism and all sources of energy”
wrong
Yarmulke wearers' sleight of hand has held science back for over 100 years now.
That's how it is spelled? I had mine on sideways I guess
I have a theory that the water is what actually is more creating the gravity. I don't believe the core or the internal part of the earth is magna I believe it's water. And the lava is just caused by the friction of water on the bottom of the crust. Because everything is linked with water. And other than humans in life on this planet which you came from the water. It's the only evolution of water I've seen. But why does regular water stay the way it is the water we have today it's the same water from billions of years ago. Other than a few comments or something hitting the Earth we haven't had a new supply. It would explain gravity if you have two oceans going against each other. What's a couple other ingredients. Which I don't think humans are ready for. See I want to use the ocean to rebalance the planet. But I would need calculations on everything with the ocean so I don't screw up the gravity. But no matter what I'm guaranteeing that gravity of water act the same. They do the same thing water contains life gravity contains planets. There's a connection with water in all life I'm not sure what it is and I will figure it out. But I've always been hugely fascinated with gravity. And to me all the planets are floating in the ocean. The answers in front of you just got to quit all the war and slaughter and financial gain crap. Get rid of money and you'll find out what the future really can hold. But if I am right you could terraform planets with the water. Remember you're 70% water and you will get returned to the system. It's kind of funny it makes you billions of years old. But there is a design system of evolution. Intelligent design. The other thing and this is a theory, I don't think the core is iron, for some reason I think it's more of a neutronium bass. But I look at the planets as collapsing neutron stars. They act the same way. Let's see how far we can push the human brain.
...and at the top of the intellectual mountain climb, God will be waiting.
Sabine explains her reasoning. You just shoot stuff down. You sound like a string theory apologist. Do you have any original research or discoveries to impact this or are you just some motormouth?
Æ just had to look this up:
motorischer Mund oder Motormaul •
Don't sweat the 'Æ' - it is short for the youTube channel
which could revive Doktor Alexander Unzicker's fading voice,
and make him a truly great physicist. But not without me.
Allo, Doktor ist "IN" oder NICHT?