@Dennis Feenstra We witnessed the radioactive decay of xenon-124... meaning the universe is at LEAST a million times older than BB can account for, and the new telescopes are seeing further than is possible with BB. The universe is a billion trillion years old... meaning, there was no beginning. Thank God because it has also been just a matter of common sense to me:)
@Sebastian Henkins We witnessed the radioactive decay of xenon-124... meaning the universe is at LEAST a million times older than BB can account for, and the new telescopes are seeing further than is possible with BB. The universe is a billion trillion years old... meaning, there was no beginning. Thank God because it has also been just a matter of common sense to me:)
@@batmandeltaforce the big bang would be the cosmic contraction and expansion that th Buddha references. The "universe" has no beginning, but it does have life cycles much like everything else that exists. The scope of such is beyond the true comprehension of humans, imo
Way to fit in a "poor victim me" into compliment to another person. That's actually backhanded and rude. Try removing that self-serving part after the comma.
@@user-gf8zv4ov2x well it's my first grow so I'm learning, but the only way to go is up;). Currently it's lemon og and pink gas. Next grow will be purple star killer, and Bruce banner 2.0. I'm starting a modest channel to chronicle my adventure learning to grow. Lol hoping others can use it to avoid rookie mistakes im making and learn along with me haha. But being disabled, budget is always an issue so video quality isn't as spiffy as most channels yet.
Anton, thanks for remembering Vera Rubin. I had the pleasure of hearing Vera present her life's work to a lay audience at the Hayden Planetarium in NYC. She was a modest person from Ithaca NY, who was perhaps steeped in the bubbling gorge water of Cornell University along with the likes of Hans Bethe and Carl Sagan. To hear her speak she was quite taken aback that her work led to the controversy over dark matter. The galactic rotation curve work was merely some busy work that she gladly took on during a long pregnancy to keep her mind occupied, she had no designs on an overarching great mystery of the universe. However, she could not shake the fact that the stars in galaxies rotate like they were part of a "solid disk." Anton, it's great that you give MOND a bit of credence, however, the discovery of several galaxies with Newtonian rotation curves, implying an absence of dark matter, is hard to square with MOND. If MOND is the answer then the 'solid disk' rotations could not have exceptions, it would be a law of nature, whereas the presence of dark matter is not mandated and it is not extraordinary to think that dark matter might be swept clear of some galaxies.
I must say, as an engineer and non native English speaker, your Videos are very interesting and easy to understand! I like that. All the best for you and your work! Greetings from Germany 🧡🧡🧡
Your English is excellent. The only word I would change is well. "Well to understand" doesn't sound right in English. I would say "easy to understand."
Astronomy is filled with assumptions. I mean, one are just looking at light from very distant objects. So there is a lot of room for speculation and assumptions. Physicists should not discount a theory because some astronomer thinks he has seen something that disproves it.
Science boils down to a series of assumptions based on other assumptions. Some have more predictive power than others. But the true nature of reality eludes us.
Plasma cosmology has lots of laboratorial experiments to back their assumptions while standard cosmology has mathematical formulas that don't predict anything.
Every episode of What da Math is so good, from the "Hello wonderful person" to that beautiful end theme and everything between. And you always come across happy, upbeat, and passionate for what you're teaching us about, right down to rewording things and giving us examples in case we didn't fully understand your first explanation. Thank you, Wonderul Anton!
niccce, good music-to-voice volume ratio today [ive had trouble hearing your theme song during certain videos throughout this year] 🤘 thanks for everything you do for us, Anton 😊
Maybe it is a mixture of two or more models and we are too obsessed with finding a singular solution that fits our observations. At this point it seems likely that it is more complex than any model that has been proposed.
@@inthefade In many cases the problem is more the paradox of information. You can't know the energy and location of molecular particles at the same time. Meaning, no model ever works. Just to model fluids there are hundreds, if not thousands, of models.
like galactic sized whirlpools of spacetime surrounding galaxies (the "dark matter" auras surrounding a galaxy beeing a humongous whirlpool), like some form of extended fradragging making the stars appear to move at their current high speeds while they actually move at speeds suggested by normal Newtonian gravity, and framedragging from all the matter inn the galaxies account for rest of the speed making the galaxies appear to rotate like "solid" whirlpool shaped disks, . Most galaxies actually look like huge whirlpools, and the do rotate as they where solid disks (smoking marijuana for the first time inn 2 months, so this may be the cannabis talking :)
This is my theory There is quantum gravity. Normal gravity ie Newton, Einstein Mega/hyper gravity ie on the scale of galaxies. The mega/hyper gravity bends, twists and distorts space time to mimic dark matter... I'm still working on how hyper/mega makes the universe expand to explain dark energy.....
You are a wonderful person and really find a way to explain many complex matters in a way even us common folk can understand. I'm a bio-chemist by degree and a chemist by career but I have always studied physics and astrophysics for fun. Always got straight As in those classes that I took also. I have honestly become more and more disillusioned with the dark matter theory as time has gone by (I'm 65 now) and have looked into MOND and Plasma Theory as alternatives. Honestly, I'm getting to the point that I believe we need a whole new physics to explain more and more of the Universe as we discover more and more that we simply can't explain. Please continue remember to say that dark matter is a hypothesis used to explain many things that we see in the universe so far, even though it is the most favored one currently. I really hate when people talk about theories and hypothesies like they are proven fact, which they do on certain cable shows all the time.
Anton's channel is only the regurgitation of academia's press releases. And about as far away from reality as humanitiy can get. Anton only delivers gobbledegook from on high. And is likely paid well for his propagandized youtube videos. He runs interference for all the crap that fends off truth and reality from gaining ground. Oh, Anton. Is this really the part that you want to play in this battle of reality vs propaganda? Look and think deeply, Anton. You are selling your soul, like those currently trying to undo what they have done. It's not just about what your delusions suggest it is.
@@TheWolfboy180 Ever so much of modern science and cosmology are utter crap, like so called dark matter, and dark energy, ideas created for the sole purpose of being able to hang on to their piss poor theories by their finger tips. Soon they will let go and fall into those nonexistent black holes, and for the same atrocious reasons. Modern science is way out in the rough weeds, pretending that they are on the fairway.
@@TheWolfboy180 I object to crap being pushed as reality. Dark matter and dark energy are nothing more than created garbage ideas, which are necessary to save the standard model of physics. The creation of such crap, reveals the nonsense that is being hung onto by scientist's fingertips.
Everything is matter and energy. Energy is just a word we substitute as a measure of work and force. Energy is Matter put in as a measure substance work or measurable, formless mass. That's the whole point of Einstein. Energy and matter are the same thing converted into different form doing different actions. It's why we can measure the kinetic force of a photon. Lmao.
Your unpretentious, patient focus in breaking down and clarifying sophisticated science in ways that anyone can grasp with minimal effort is endlessly refreshing. Thank You So Very Much! You, Good Sir, Are Truly Wonderful, As Is Your Science. Cheers!
It makes perfect sense that we can't understand everything from our small local environment. Anything we see is possibly an extremely biased environment.
Privet Anton! mate, your vudeos are one of my joys of life. I love learning about this beautiful mysterious Universe, and i thank you for the constant knowledge and love of the unoverse you share with all of us. Also, your new haircut looks super sharp mate, looking good ✌
I LOVE that he always does that ! but there is always some TROLL that bitches because ANTON might not know as much as the people who write the papers sometimes !
I might be projecting my biases, but I think I hear Mr. Petrov's skepticism about this research in the intro: "This, *um* , paper ..." Anyway, wonderful persons, I'm still in the dark, so it doesn't really matter. ;-)
I have been really interested in MOND for a while, even with some of the hits it has taken recently. I have often wondered if possibly both Modified Gravity AND Dark Matter are real, and this comparison between their modeling of the evolution of the universe seems to support a "middle ground". If there was both DM and MOND, I have no idea where you could look to tease them apart. Obviously detecting a DM particle would help narrow down things a bunch...
Is there a group testing this as a possible explanation?, maybe both are true, it just that the density of DM and the coefficients of MOND were somewhat over/understated? Maybe there is some mid-point balance of both. Then again, I know so little of the mathematics involved that I may be spouting nonsense and both models are not viably mixable.
I think our computer models will eventually get so detailed and sophisticated that the people on the planets in them will wonder if they are part of a simulation.
Have scientists been modelling the 'gravitational dampening' in models like this? That is, the effect of fast spinning (and moving?) objects pulling the space around them, and in turn dragging any surrounding matter with them (Which I assume dampens the initial spinning/moving in an equal and opposite manner). If not, it would be very interesting to see how those effects come into play.
@@Bitchslapper316 But in the case of the bullet cluster, you can see that the centers of the gravitational lensing are further away from the middle region where the luminous part of the two galaxies are. That is indipendent of the cosmological model
MOND falls apart dramatically on one specific type of Galaxy: the galaxies we measure as having Zero Dark Matter. MOND was proposed specifically to tackle the Dark Matter issue and has no answer for a galaxy that has no measurable Dark Matter like we discovered in the last few years. AKA MOND failed hard because of this universe breaking hole in it's construction.
So we can either tweak the math to match observations or just find examples of things we already understand that match our observations. Two words: Birkland Currents. I know it’s fringe “pseudo science”, but much of the electric universe theory matches and predicts observations (perfectly in many cases). Galactic rotation can be modeled almost exactly) using our understanding of Birkland Currents without having to modify Newtonian physics or invent magical invisible matter.
Wait, a good model should be predictive whereas MND appears to be a retro fit that is correct through fudging the figures. I am going to have to put my big boy underpants on and dig through the paper.
But they simulate it from a beginning state. The model still has to progress from an early universe. But it is being falsified by many things Anton mentions in this video. Obviously we have to encourage some radical thinking to solve this problem; Frankly, we need a new Einstein.
@@inthefade Nah, Einstein for all his virtues, was narrow minded. What we really need, is a scientist who isn't dead-set on making stuff fit into *their* theory.
@@The_Keeper The same Einstein who defied the mainstream physics to change our perception of the universe through relativity (one of the most successful theories in existence) and quantum theory? You gotta be kidding me.
I think a lot of physicists hope this is the case because it seems almost hopeless that we'll find a particle/field to explain things after this point. But that is what is so exciting about it! We have no dämņ clue!
I see Dark Matter as more of a force than a specific particle that can be measured here on earth. Perhaps it's just the shear mass of the vacuum of space that forces galactic uniformity of galaxies. The current Newtonian model certainly needs some attention.
Anton, MOND doesn't have anything to do with far-away distances, it is an effect that kicks in at VERY SMALL ACCELERATIONS, which for orbital mechanics, it happens to coincide with far-away distances
After almost 40 years there's still people trying to make MOND work? As far as I know the majority of astrophysicists have dropped it and now believe that dark matter is the best explanation. Saying that we haven't found it is a bit misleading. We have plenty of observations that show that there's something there, and the placeholder name of dark matter has been used to define that something because it looks to interact with gravity like some sort of matter. What we have not identified it's the particles that supposedly constitute dark matter, which is not at all surprising. Maybe we haven't the technology yet. It's like air. Even the ancient knew that air existed but only modern science has been able to identify the molecules of gases that compose it.
The problem is epistemological, and becomes crystal clear once you read Thomas Kuhn's main book about Scientific Revolutions. You see: at the moment of their first inception no theory is ever able to explain all the observable phenomena out there. NO ONE. For instance: during centuries (yes! centuries!) anyone who proposed light as a wave could be pointed to several experiments whose results would be really difficult to explain if you take light to be a wave, but match perfectly if you assume it's a particle. And viceversa: wave-pushing scientists could point to experiments that were un-explainable if you selected "light is a particle" theory but were easily explainable by thinking of it as a wave. Eventually, most scientists chose to think of light as a wave because that explained far more experiments than the other model - but things would really only calm down until it was finally understood light is actually BOTH at the same time. Similar thing happened to electricity: to anyone thinking it was a kind of fluid, Hertz' experiments would demonstrate it wasn't, as what he was doing is what we'd call resonant circuits where electricity was converted to radio waves in one circut, beamed over from one crystal cage to the other via radio waves, then converted back into electricity. He didn't know it, nobody knew it, but everybody could see that there was absolutely no fluid at all traversing from one crystal cage to the other - plenty of experiments demonstrated that. And still, most scientists chose to ignore this experiment's result because "electricity as a fluid" explained far more observations. And... gravity!!! During centuries it was obvious to all astronomoers that Mercury's precesion wasn't exactly what Newton's theory predicted. Yes, CENTURIES. But they all kept accepting it, as it explained wonderfully everything else. It was hypothesized that an inner planet, closer to the sun than Mercury but really massive, could be causing such effects - astronomers galore went blind trying to spot such a planet. It wasn't until Einstein came that the mystery was solved. The point is: you cannot expect any theory to explain each and every observed phenomenon right from day one - that's NEVER happened in the history of science. There's a lot of stuff that Lambda-CDM doesn't explain adquately, plus it's a capricious theory that requires astronomers to be constantly adjusting the amount of dark matter present in different areas of the universe (and sometimes even in adjacent galaxies) in order to fit the observations, plus it's really not-elegant and, after all these years, dark matter has NEVER been observed, not once, and for some reason the closest stars to us do not seem to be affected in the slightest by its pressence (there was a study by a bunch of astronomers using the observatory in the Chilean mountains for several years to measure to incredible precision the acceleration of the 100 closest stars to us - **all** of them had accelerations consistent with the observable matter, with absolutely no acceleration due to dark matter) , which in itself disproves the idea that dark matter would fill all the "blank" space within the galaxy - thus introducing yet another mistery in L-CDM: why would dark matter clump only in the outskirts of our galaxy??? MOND and their kin are far more elegant, require less unknowns and thus pass the Occam test. Eventually we'll stumble upon a theory that explains everything, but we're not there yet.
The strong nuclear force does not follow the inverse square law, else the whole universe would be a giant atomic nucleus. Electromagnetic radiation APPEARS to follow the inverse square law. Gravity does too, at least for “small” Solar System sized distances. What if, for galactic and interstellar distances, gravidy dies not fall of according to inverse square law?
Alternative theories are great because they indicate a creative approach to problems of knowledge; if no alternative theories existed then science as we know it would not exist. Even if an alternative theory is disproven it can still provide inspiration down the road for science fiction writers.
Fritz Zwicky also deserves credit for the concept of dark matter. He, too, noticed that the velocity of the outer parts of the galaxies was too great and proposed a different source of gravity to explain it, long before Vera Rubin.
Electromagnetic force is more powerful then gravity; So you don't need as much mass with charged particles, and since electromagnetic force repulses and attracts mass it can mimic gravity;
@@bmc7434 good point. many people believe that the electromagnetic force ( not gravity) is what actually started clumping matter together to form solar systems.
"We don't know what it is, we can only conjecture from some gravitational effects that are apparently greater than they're supposed to be, but we're going to pretend we know what things would be like without something we don't understand because......well........because next week is our government funding review." Padump-chishhhhh.
@@TOMAS-lh4er I love how he keeps referring to these witch doctors as scientists. "..she BELIEVED in a kind of...and slowly moved away from BELIEVING in dark matter as a kind of particle." Scientists don't believe anything, they carefully weigh the available evidence and make judgements as to which hypothesis best explains it. These people are like Medieval monks debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ;)
Great video! Hope you don't mind but I submitted a corrected version of the auto generated captions to this one. RUclips auto-captions often get it wrong and it was bugging me :) Keep the great videos coming, I love the topics you choose to cover!
I'm only a retired tow truck. driver and I cant wait to see his videos , I learn so much ! especially from the Wonderfull Persons that are really smart and really debate a comment ! LOVE IT !
Correct, all is accounted for if you consider pre-matter, ionized particles, the plasma that permeates all of the universe. Scientists keep looking for atomic matter, key word atomic. They do not count any pre-matter, the building blocks of all matter, the plasma that all the atomic matter is constructed of as a process of spin in opposing dual toroidal vortexes. Considering this matter regarding matter, as laid out in electric/plasma cosmology negates the need to keep chasing ghosts around that don't exist. There is no dark matter, there is charged plasma. Problem solved. I will be available for my Nobel Peace Prize in physics anytime it is ready. Well actually it should go to somebody like Hannes Alfven who worked through these problems decades ago and it can go with his other one already awarded regarding magnetohydrodynamics.
@@vincetalkz Would we be able to detect THAT much plasma? I'm no physicist and I have no real idea what you tried to explain. I won't even try to act like I do. But if this plasma you're talking about is normal matter in a plasma state (which I'm thinking it is), then we should be able to detect it, right? Why haven't we seen evidence that it is there? That is just A LOT of normal matter, as plasma, hanging out.
@@MrFreakHeavy It is NOT normal matter. It does not count as matter in physics. Look at it this way. Lets say we were looking for cars inside a car assembly plant, but there we find NO cars. we walk past thousands of doors, windows, seats, partially completed cars, but can find no cars and say then that the auto plant has no detectable cars, yet what it does have is the potential to be innumerable cars. This is what I mean about matter. Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons are the building blocks of ALL matter, and the universe is packed with them in cold and charged states, the charged ones we see in nebula, but none of them count as ATOMIC MATTER, because atomic matter is composed of a combination of these elementary particles. This is even if there is enough of them out there (which there is) to potentially comprise and be assembled into this the missing 95% of matter they cannot find. Modern physics ignores this PRE MATTER in its equations.
Vince Talkz Plasma is said to be separate from normal matter in 'normal physics', but is this how it's treated in astrophysics specifically as well? Also, how do you know all this? It sounds plausible but I'd like some reading material if you recommend anything
@@MuffinTastic Well since you asked. There is a recognized branch of science called Plasma Cosmology that explains the foundation principles of what we understand about the universe from a very different perspective. However, it is dismissed as a red headed step child in academic circles and just a mental exercise not to be taken seriously in any way. I beg to differ. There is also a branch of alternative science called Electric Universe Theory. It is considered outright heresy by academic cosmologists. I once again beg to differ. Here is the basic core belief of both of these schools of thought which offend the sensibilities of most modern academics. According to each of these SCIENCES, gravity is not the be all, do all, and end all cause of the core functions of the universe. The earth centric, sun centric view where the things we witness around us are caused by these globular matter centric bodies through the effects of gravity alone is challenged by these theories. This controversial view that is often dismissed is that the electric/plasma that permeates the so called void and vacuum of space (it is not a void, as it is choke full of energy, in pre matter form) is the driver of and the creator of everything, as this energy is assembled into matter in 3d printing machines we call galaxies, suns, and planets. No burning hydrogen ball sun or accretion disk model needed. Sun is a plasma ball with birkland currents extending from its poles connecting it to other structures in this network of fractal dual toroidal vortices driven by electromagnetic forces. The electromagnetic force is millions of times more powerful than gravity in this view. This theory/science states that we are the product of the energy we see around us as opposed to the energy we see around us being a product of our sun and gravity. That is an oversimplification that some may wish to criticize me on, but i cannot type here all evening trying to share about this. I will share some links below, but with specific reservations. I am an autodidact and polymath who has been researching these matters as well as comparative mythology for quite some time to uncover the message that I believe has been left to us by our ancestors regarding cyclical cycles of destruction at the hand to phenomena we have not witnessed in modern history. I will be releasing much of my research soon.. I hope for the purpose of exploration and answering your questions that this is OK and that my comments and the below links are OK Anton, as I know the first link I am about to offer is controversial in the mainstream scientific community. Well it seems that links I have been sharing have led to many of my comments being ghosted. I will try and leave enough information for you and others to find what I am referring to. Go to Thunderbolts Project RUclips channel I suggest you watch everything in their channel EXCEPT anything to do with the Saturn Polar Configuration theory that the founder, Michael Talbott has been running with for decades that IMHO tarnishes the worth and acceptance of ALL the other good science that has been produced surrounding this core theory. I have learned in life to self analyze, especially when promoting controversial matters. Mr Talbott should do so as well. In the decades since this faulty part of this theory has been conceived, much scientific data has been created that unequivocally disproves it. Look for the pdf by this title for an explanation. Search Results Web results Problems with the Saturn Myth's Polar Configuration Regarding the rest of the electric/plasma universe theories ideas, I have only found confirmation after confirmation, much of it coming in modern (within the last couple years) peer reviewed scientific papers. When at the Project Thunderbolts channel please pay extra special attention to the work of Don Scott who has presented his work by invitation to NASA and many other groups. Also Peter Mungo has some amazing work regarding past earth magnetic anomalies and possible ground plasma events that have in part shaped our planet. This below titled video alone will open your mind to the wealth of knowledge this science has been amassing that the scientific community generally dismisses as lunacy. Enjoy. Arthur Ramthun: Plant Electrotropism | EU2015 At Project Thunderbolts channel Some would say everything's electric and plasma on some level if perceived in the right time frame. We are the product of plasma/electrical processes, as are trees, planets and more. Have fun exploring 時計仕掛け and everybody else.
Hannes Alfven and the plasma astronomers put forward a far more satisfying explanation than Mond, and you don't have to modify Newtonian dynamics to do so. It also explains why galaxies and the stars themselves lie on giant Birkeland current style filaments
The same can be said for any physics theory. The gain is that the "correct" one is the simplest description (that is rigid, explain all the observation, and success in making predictions).
@@zhiqiangyan1554To me a theory consists of two parts - equations and a narrative (or story). The math is used to make predictions, and the narrative is used to get an understanding. Once the math fits the observations well enough, it tends to stay around for a long time. But the narrative is a completely different story, and MOND doesn't have one at all, or does it? Examples: Lorentz ether theory shares many equations with Einstein's theories, and some have said that both are indistinguishable from each other. LET has a more intuitive narrative than relativity, and should therefore give you a better understanding. But people still prefer the story of curved spacetime, for some reason. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical framework with a whole bunch of different narratives, i.e. the different interpretations. Now, what is the story of MOND? The Electric Universe is the opposite - they have a story but not much math.
As this may be a result of space-time curvature I would hypothesize that time itself might be the key as time runs slower near the center of the galaxies and faster far from the center. The same could apply in the whole universe enhancing the acceleration of expansion. Just a thought.
That's why science does not claim that sciencentific theories are 100% true but are just what we see most probable explanations based on our current knowledge. And no, it's not a "guessing game" but carefully calculated and tested what would be the most probable explanation.
TTime685 Definitely not a plug-in. One must explain gravitational lensing and the rotational velocities of galaxies. The answer may not be dark matter but there is evidence for it. Dark matter is just a term and not a thing as of yet, as no one knows exactly what it is.
I'm glad you corrected yourself and said "hypothesis" instead of "theory". Then you immediately called them theories again. "Hypothesis" or "theoretical models" is what I would call them. But it's your show. BTW: I love your show.
*Hypothesis* -- a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. *Theory* -- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Cut him some slack
Thanks for all your topics on the our universe. for me it maybe not one or the other is right but a combination of the three or so models. We live in a wonderful universe.
The biggest issue with MOND is that it's Newtonian. The second biggest is that it basically alters computation for data-fitting but lacks any reason for existing other than "I don't like dark matter..."
I'm so glad scientists are keeping an open mind about dark matter. Most conspiracy or anti-science people assume dark matter is accepted as truth by mainstream science, when it's more the absence of truth; a placeholder to fill the massive knowledge void of galactic influence. It's theories like this that may eventually lead to more answers, hopefully in my lifetime.
Dark matter is just the gravitational effect of our universe interacting with the matter of another dimension. We can't actually interact with it but its imposed on our plain. Sorta like how different radio frequencies don't interfere with each other.
I always kind of had a problem with the Dark Matter theory. Just at times it came off "heck if i know, let me add numbers from nowhere and now my equation works!". That basis alone had red flagged it for me, not saying there isn't a thing or most likely multiple thing we do not understand yet or even incorrect, but it did bump the skepticism for me.
Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Labs did a dimilar thing years ago by firing 2 plasmoids at each other; they settled into a rotating spiral disk. Dr Donald E Scott took it further in his White paper Force-Free Field Aligned Currents. Black Holes and Dark Matter not required to model recorded galactic behaviours.
MOND has the huge advantage over WIMPs and MACHOs that its formulae, which were originally adjusted ad-hoc by Milgrom on the basis of best-fit to the observations, can be derived (sortof) from first principles if you accept Quantized Inertia theory. The fact that the formula and the constant values derived from QI are not exactly the same as those empirically gotten by Milgrom means there are still unknowns in QI for it to completely represent reality
Not really true. Earth's place in the Milky Way is in a section that requires invisible mass to conform to classical Newtonian Dynamics. Probably not a we'll enough known fact that Milky Way is a dark matter necessity galaxy type I guess.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a galaxy's gravitational pull isn't dictated by its center alone. The black hole at the center of our galaxy for instance is somewhere below ~1% of the milky way's mass right If you ONLY had the black hole and the stars at the edges, yeah, they'd go slow, but instead you have a cluster of a rather ridiculously large number of celestial bodies swarming around the singular point. This makes it more like being on a carousel and holding out a variably stretchy rope, the less gravitational pull at the center, the weaker the rope, the more it stretches. Same goes for the opposite, more gravitational pull at the center, the stronger the rope. So if we make our mystical rope tether to the center of the milkway galaxy, and say we have all the current mass of the milky way galaxy unmodified; This would be a relatively stiff rope, the bonds of each star by gravity being the wound-together threads that are woven hastily at first but work into a beautiful array. If you attatched our solar system to the end, and spun at the speed of the milky way, the rope would extend to a point, but due to the so-called "Stiffness" or resistance to elasticity would slow the rate by which we traveled in a spiral that would slowly increase in diameter as it went, eventually coming to rest probably 70% of the distance to the visible ends of the galaxy itself, secured gradually until essentially the forces acting upon it force it to come to rest at a certain position within the rotation. It would actually be MORE difficult to assume that it should spin slower at the outer reaches, because once again, the center of the galaxy does hold a lot of mass, but it is far from all of it, and besides, gravity treats spacetime more like a blanket stretched out at the corners with a ball rolling on it causing it to dip and create and well, gravity is a 4th dimensional concept by which things fall into other more massive things because of this gravity well sort of effect, if you have enough balls rolling in the dip and they're also all connected to one another, yeah they're gonna try to equalize their speed naturally
Hypothesis: MOND can work on the galactic scale, but the universal scale is dark matter. Reasoning: We've had theories in the past which tried to understand the same phenomenon, but couldn't quite meet in the middle until something or someone came along to bridge that gap. In a sense, Lambda CDM and MOND are trying to explain the same thing, but perhaps they need one another to make a complete theory that works in all cases. Of course, I could be dead wrong on this one, but I'm used to second guessing myself at this point.
People have been simulating the universe long before dark matter was included, and it always ended up looking like what we thought the universe looked like at the time. The only difference i've seen over the decades is better resolution and smoothness..
With radically different conflicting hypothesis I guess we are still in the dark about matter.
Badum tiss.....
"Dark matter" is no different than any matter... just think bigger than big bang R.I.P. allowed. But now that is dead, maybe we can progress.
@Dennis Feenstra We witnessed the radioactive decay of xenon-124... meaning the universe is at LEAST a million times older than BB can account for, and the new telescopes are seeing further than is possible with BB. The universe is a billion trillion years old... meaning, there was no beginning. Thank God because it has also been just a matter of common sense to me:)
@Sebastian Henkins We witnessed the radioactive decay of xenon-124... meaning the universe is at LEAST a million times older than BB can account for, and the new telescopes are seeing further than is possible with BB. The universe is a billion trillion years old... meaning, there was no beginning. Thank God because it has also been just a matter of common sense to me:)
@@batmandeltaforce the big bang would be the cosmic contraction and expansion that th Buddha references. The "universe" has no beginning, but it does have life cycles much like everything else that exists. The scope of such is beyond the true comprehension of humans, imo
Anton, you are the most wonderful RUclipsr for calling all of us wonderful, even though people like me don't deserve it. Thank you Anton.
Of all the places I encounter you.
Didn't you make a comment of this kind a few days/weeks before?
I think I have seen your name before🤔
Ah, we meet for the 1,435,676th time.
dont look a gifted horse in the mouth :-)
Way to fit in a "poor victim me" into compliment to another person.
That's actually backhanded and rude.
Try removing that self-serving part after the comma.
We Need more youtubers like you.
lol This dude's fake. You want real go to suspicious observers
Andrew Jacobs
Maybe you should stick to commenting on your pseudoscience channels
Andrew Jacobs go back to secureteam10
@@paulinadeluca9117 lol You humans & your egos. My bloodline was brought here to start Nasa after they created something called the V2 rocket.
Andrew Jacobs go back to the psyche unit ya nut
I always enjoy listening to these videos while tending to my humble garden. Cheers sir
Globehead Gardener that’s sick! How’s your grow goin? And what strains?
@@user-gf8zv4ov2x well it's my first grow so I'm learning, but the only way to go is up;). Currently it's lemon og and pink gas. Next grow will be purple star killer, and Bruce banner 2.0. I'm starting a modest channel to chronicle my adventure learning to grow. Lol hoping others can use it to avoid rookie mistakes im making and learn along with me haha. But being disabled, budget is always an issue so video quality isn't as spiffy as most channels yet.
@@globeheadgardener THAT right there will get you donations , good luck
@@TOMAS-lh4er I'm not looking for donations haha but thanks and cheers. I only meant explain the lack of 4k video or snappy editing lol
Sigh... must be nice
THIS IS THE ONLY CHANNEL that it takes me days to go through the fun comments , I LOV IT ! . only problem is there is a new one daily !!
Anton, thanks for remembering Vera Rubin. I had the pleasure of hearing Vera present her life's work to a lay audience at the Hayden Planetarium in NYC. She was a modest person from Ithaca NY, who was perhaps steeped in the bubbling gorge water of Cornell University along with the likes of Hans Bethe and Carl Sagan. To hear her speak she was quite taken aback that her work led to the controversy over dark matter. The galactic rotation curve work was merely some busy work that she gladly took on during a long pregnancy to keep her mind occupied, she had no designs on an overarching great mystery of the universe. However, she could not shake the fact that the stars in galaxies rotate like they were part of a "solid disk." Anton, it's great that you give MOND a bit of credence, however, the discovery of several galaxies with Newtonian rotation curves, implying an absence of dark matter, is hard to square with MOND. If MOND is the answer then the 'solid disk' rotations could not have exceptions, it would be a law of nature, whereas the presence of dark matter is not mandated and it is not extraordinary to think that dark matter might be swept clear of some galaxies.
I must say, as an engineer and non native English speaker, your Videos are very interesting and easy
to understand! I like that. All the best for you and your work!
Greetings from Germany 🧡🧡🧡
As a native English speaker, Anton is easy to follow as well.
Your English is excellent. The only word I would change is well. "Well to understand" doesn't sound right in English. I would say "easy to understand."
John Pritzlaff WOW! THX! I follow your advice and change that...
Greetings from Germany 🧡🧡🧡
@@HolyHeinz you're welcome! Now it's perfect. I'm sure learning like this is exactly how you got so good at speaking English in the first place.
@@JohnPritzlaff I'm from Germany too, most people in Germany can speak and write english really good.
Thanks for making astronomy news really interesting and exciting! Wonderful!
That's great. We have too many assumptions without real base and we need to question them.
It doesn't mean they're wrong, only that they could be.
Astronomy is filled with assumptions. I mean, one are just looking at light from very distant objects. So there is a lot of room for speculation and assumptions. Physicists should not discount a theory because some astronomer thinks he has seen something that disproves it.
@@Mosern1977 That's part of the problem, dude.
Science boils down to a series of assumptions based on other assumptions. Some have more predictive power than others. But the true nature of reality eludes us.
@@Terragen Perfect. That's very true. And that's exactly why it's important to question and recheck those assumptions from time to time. 😊
Plasma cosmology has lots of laboratorial experiments to back their assumptions while standard cosmology has mathematical formulas that don't predict anything.
Every episode of What da Math is so good, from the "Hello wonderful person" to that beautiful end theme and everything between. And you always come across happy, upbeat, and passionate for what you're teaching us about, right down to rewording things and giving us examples in case we didn't fully understand your first explanation. Thank you, Wonderul Anton!
niccce, good music-to-voice volume ratio today [ive had trouble hearing your theme song during certain videos throughout this year] 🤘 thanks for everything you do for us, Anton 😊
Humans: Ok universe, you need to pick a model now and stick to it.
Universe: No, I don't think I will.
Maybe it is a mixture of two or more models and we are too obsessed with finding a singular solution that fits our observations.
At this point it seems likely that it is more complex than any model that has been proposed.
Dark Matter, whats that?
Are any of the quantum mechanics a part of this model search? Maybe there is a macro aspect to the micro particles.
Universe: Figure out how to get across your galaxy first, then we can talk.
@@inthefade In many cases the problem is more the paradox of information. You can't know the energy and location of molecular particles at the same time. Meaning, no model ever works. Just to model fluids there are hundreds, if not thousands, of models.
"Hello wonderful person" always gives me a smile thanks friend...oh, wonderful content too
Thank you Anton. You are always interesting.
What about space curving / bending? Maybe space bends in a lot more ways, mimicking dark matter effects?
Perhaps large amounts of charge or magnetism could explain it as well, since they have been shown to bend light as well, even if minimally
like galactic sized whirlpools of spacetime surrounding galaxies (the "dark matter" auras surrounding a galaxy beeing a humongous whirlpool), like some form of extended fradragging making the stars appear to move at their current high speeds while they actually move at speeds suggested by normal Newtonian gravity, and framedragging from all the matter inn the galaxies account for rest of the speed making the galaxies appear to rotate like "solid" whirlpool shaped disks, . Most galaxies actually look like huge whirlpools, and the do rotate as they where solid disks (smoking marijuana for the first time inn 2 months, so this may be the cannabis talking :)
This is my theory
There is quantum gravity.
Normal gravity ie Newton, Einstein
Mega/hyper gravity ie on the scale of galaxies.
The mega/hyper gravity bends, twists and distorts space time to mimic dark matter...
I'm still working on how hyper/mega makes the universe expand to explain dark energy.....
I passion this dude has to make such a interesting videos every day is just amazing. Hats off to you sir!!
Thank you, lovely Anton buddy!
You are a wonderful person and really find a way to explain many complex matters in a way even us common folk can understand. I'm a bio-chemist by degree and a chemist by career but I have always studied physics and astrophysics for fun. Always got straight As in those classes that I took also.
I have honestly become more and more disillusioned with the dark matter theory as time has gone by (I'm 65 now) and have looked into MOND and Plasma Theory as alternatives. Honestly, I'm getting to the point that I believe we need a whole new physics to explain more and more of the Universe as we discover more and more that we simply can't explain.
Please continue remember to say that dark matter is a hypothesis used to explain many things that we see in the universe so far, even though it is the most favored one currently. I really hate when people talk about theories and hypothesies like they are proven fact, which they do on certain cable shows all the time.
I LOVE THIS SHOW !! I'm 67 and a retired TOW TRUCK driver ! I love Antons humility .
We are all so lucky to have your content. No agenda, just great info. BEST
Anton's channel is only the regurgitation of academia's press releases. And about as far away from reality as humanitiy can get. Anton only delivers gobbledegook from on high. And is likely paid well for his propagandized youtube videos. He runs interference for all the crap that fends off truth and reality from gaining ground. Oh, Anton. Is this really the part that you want to play in this battle of reality vs propaganda? Look and think deeply, Anton. You are selling your soul, like those currently trying to undo what they have done. It's not just about what your delusions suggest it is.
Are you okay, Joseph? Do you need your blankie and your sippy cup? Too afraid of the way the universe works?
@@TheWolfboy180 Ever so much of modern science and cosmology are utter crap, like so called dark matter, and dark energy, ideas created for the sole purpose of being able to hang on to their piss poor theories by their finger tips. Soon they will let go and fall into those nonexistent black holes, and for the same atrocious reasons. Modern science is way out in the rough weeds, pretending that they are on the fairway.
What’s your objection? I’m going to guess religious? Do you still think the earth is the center of the universe?
@@TheWolfboy180 I object to crap being pushed as reality. Dark matter and dark energy are nothing more than created garbage ideas, which are necessary to save the standard model of physics. The creation of such crap, reveals the nonsense that is being hung onto by scientist's fingertips.
Thanks Anton for presenting and explaining new theories and hypothesis in a very objective, open-minded and unbiased way
When your only tool is gravity, everything looks like matter. I think that's how it goes.
Thats good !
When your only tool is bass, everything sounds like bass.
davie504 intensifies
Everything is matter and energy. Energy is just a word we substitute as a measure of work and force. Energy is Matter put in as a measure substance work or measurable, formless mass.
That's the whole point of Einstein. Energy and matter are the same thing converted into different form doing different actions. It's why we can measure the kinetic force of a photon. Lmao.
As opposed to what? Nothingness?
Your unpretentious, patient focus in breaking down and clarifying sophisticated science in ways that anyone can grasp with minimal effort is endlessly refreshing. Thank You So Very Much! You, Good Sir, Are Truly Wonderful, As Is Your Science. Cheers!
It makes perfect sense that we can't understand everything from our small local environment. Anything we see is possibly an extremely biased environment.
Privet Anton! mate, your vudeos are one of my joys of life. I love learning about this beautiful mysterious Universe, and i thank you for the constant knowledge and love of the unoverse you share with all of us. Also, your new haircut looks super sharp mate, looking good ✌
Dark matter up there with pixie dust, rocking horse poo, tartan paint, chocolate teapots and left handed screwdrivers.
Where’s your PhD, Alex?
Never under estimate the power of the (5th) FORCE. Wonderful episode/tutorial! Please keep 'em coming!!
They haven't voted in favor of the 5th Force yet, have they?
@@peaceonearth351 Not that I have heard. Makes the most sense to me!
@@chadscott2401 Just saying. I heard that there was to be a vote coming up this year on the 5th Force. I think there is evidence of quantum gravity.
It's just the _first time_ you've reported about it.
There has been plenty of prior research done without dark matter as a variable.
Edgy
Fascinating. Thank you for including the paper.
I LOVE that he always does that ! but there is always some TROLL that bitches because ANTON might not know as much as the people who write the papers sometimes !
We can't explain how galaxies form without dark matter, but we can't find the dark matter. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!
THATS FUNNY
We found galaxies that have no dark matter, AKA they move according to classical Newtonian Dynamics
@@i-evi-l which is even more evidence for dark matter. You can take dark matter out of a galaxy but you can't take a modified theory of gravity out.
The rent is too damn high!
It's not as simple as that at all, because the dark matter is no actual perfect fit or solution to 'fix' the model.
Anton, you are a great guy! Smart, educated and a great teacher! I love your show that fills my desire to understand the universe!
I might be projecting my biases, but I think I hear Mr. Petrov's skepticism about this research in the intro: "This, *um* , paper ..."
Anyway, wonderful persons, I'm still in the dark, so it doesn't really matter. ;-)
I get the pun and all, but can you please turn on the lights?
@@GhostofFarta Hey! You just brightened my day! ;-)
@@BuildingCenter so did the light lol
This channel is a gem. So much complex and cosmic information in an understandable way.
What if the light lensing comes from a black hole / star messing with the lightwaves when those waves were "moving at us"?
I dont know but that's a good thought
Beacuse its not possible that every source of light, every photon has been messed with and so uniformly
Love to listen to your videos so inspiring that it leaves many in the dust! Thank you Anton..
I have been really interested in MOND for a while, even with some of the hits it has taken recently. I have often wondered if possibly both Modified Gravity AND Dark Matter are real, and this comparison between their modeling of the evolution of the universe seems to support a "middle ground".
If there was both DM and MOND, I have no idea where you could look to tease them apart. Obviously detecting a DM particle would help narrow down things a bunch...
Is there a group testing this as a possible explanation?, maybe both are true, it just that the density of DM and the coefficients of MOND were somewhat over/understated? Maybe there is some mid-point balance of both.
Then again, I know so little of the mathematics involved that I may be spouting nonsense and both models are not viably mixable.
I think our computer models will eventually get so detailed and sophisticated that the people on the planets in them will wonder if they are part of a simulation.
"What would the universe look like if our calculations were actually right"
Have scientists been modelling the 'gravitational dampening' in models like this? That is, the effect of fast spinning (and moving?) objects pulling the space around them, and in turn dragging any surrounding matter with them (Which I assume dampens the initial spinning/moving in an equal and opposite manner).
If not, it would be very interesting to see how those effects come into play.
But Anton what about those galaxies without dark matter we just discovered? Doesn't that too disprove MOND?
Exactly. Also the bullett cluster is a strong proof against MOND.
It doesn't. That "dark matter" they see is calculated by the current model. Think if it like circular science.
@@Bitchslapper316 But in the case of the bullet cluster, you can see that the centers of the gravitational lensing are further away from the middle region where the luminous part of the two galaxies are. That is indipendent of the cosmological model
@@Bitchslapper316 If you've forgotten, Dark Matter is a real-world phenomenon. Models are just trying to explain it.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I'm not sure what that means. It's a widely accepted hypothesis but there has been no actual evidence that it exists.
For other than MOND explanation - check Metric dynamics by S.V.Siparov.
MOND falls apart dramatically on one specific type of Galaxy: the galaxies we measure as having Zero Dark Matter. MOND was proposed specifically to tackle the Dark Matter issue and has no answer for a galaxy that has no measurable Dark Matter like we discovered in the last few years. AKA MOND failed hard because of this universe breaking hole in it's construction.
Great theme, i was waiting for it, thanks a lot. As always great programa.
So we can either tweak the math to match observations or just find examples of things we already understand that match our observations.
Two words: Birkland Currents.
I know it’s fringe “pseudo science”, but much of the electric universe theory matches and predicts observations (perfectly in many cases). Galactic rotation can be modeled almost exactly) using our understanding of Birkland Currents without having to modify Newtonian physics or invent magical invisible matter.
Quantized Inertia is SOOO much more elegant than MOND. No adjustable parameters!!
Wait, a good model should be predictive whereas MND appears to be a retro fit that is correct through fudging the figures. I am going to have to put my big boy underpants on and dig through the paper.
But they simulate it from a beginning state. The model still has to progress from an early universe.
But it is being falsified by many things Anton mentions in this video.
Obviously we have to encourage some radical thinking to solve this problem; Frankly, we need a new Einstein.
@@inthefade Nah, Einstein for all his virtues, was narrow minded.
What we really need, is a scientist who isn't dead-set on making stuff fit into *their* theory.
@@The_Keeper Einstein's Biggest Blunder, the Cosmological Constant, was actually one of his greatest discoveries that we argued over for decades.
CCC is predictive
@@The_Keeper The same Einstein who defied the mainstream physics to change our perception of the universe through relativity (one of the most successful theories in existence) and quantum theory? You gotta be kidding me.
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
International Astrophysicist Convention 2050: "Remember Dark Matter? What were we thinking?!?!"
REMEMBER that guy "ANTON "
I think a lot of physicists hope this is the case because it seems almost hopeless that we'll find a particle/field to explain things after this point.
But that is what is so exciting about it! We have no dämņ clue!
I see Dark Matter as more of a force than a specific particle that can be measured here on earth. Perhaps it's just the shear mass of the vacuum of space that forces galactic uniformity of galaxies. The current Newtonian model certainly needs some attention.
Interesting Simulation.
???? Maybe
Anton, MOND doesn't have anything to do with far-away distances, it is an effect that kicks in at VERY SMALL ACCELERATIONS, which for orbital mechanics, it happens to coincide with far-away distances
After almost 40 years there's still people trying to make MOND work? As far as I know the majority of astrophysicists have dropped it and now believe that dark matter is the best explanation. Saying that we haven't found it is a bit misleading. We have plenty of observations that show that there's something there, and the placeholder name of dark matter has been used to define that something because it looks to interact with gravity like some sort of matter.
What we have not identified it's the particles that supposedly constitute dark matter, which is not at all surprising. Maybe we haven't the technology yet. It's like air. Even the ancient knew that air existed but only modern science has been able to identify the molecules of gases that compose it.
The problem is epistemological, and becomes crystal clear once you read Thomas Kuhn's main book about Scientific Revolutions. You see: at the moment of their first inception no theory is ever able to explain all the observable phenomena out there. NO ONE. For instance: during centuries (yes! centuries!) anyone who proposed light as a wave could be pointed to several experiments whose results would be really difficult to explain if you take light to be a wave, but match perfectly if you assume it's a particle. And viceversa: wave-pushing scientists could point to experiments that were un-explainable if you selected "light is a particle" theory but were easily explainable by thinking of it as a wave. Eventually, most scientists chose to think of light as a wave because that explained far more experiments than the other model - but things would really only calm down until it was finally understood light is actually BOTH at the same time.
Similar thing happened to electricity: to anyone thinking it was a kind of fluid, Hertz' experiments would demonstrate it wasn't, as what he was doing is what we'd call resonant circuits where electricity was converted to radio waves in one circut, beamed over from one crystal cage to the other via radio waves, then converted back into electricity. He didn't know it, nobody knew it, but everybody could see that there was absolutely no fluid at all traversing from one crystal cage to the other - plenty of experiments demonstrated that. And still, most scientists chose to ignore this experiment's result because "electricity as a fluid" explained far more observations.
And... gravity!!! During centuries it was obvious to all astronomoers that Mercury's precesion wasn't exactly what Newton's theory predicted. Yes, CENTURIES. But they all kept accepting it, as it explained wonderfully everything else. It was hypothesized that an inner planet, closer to the sun than Mercury but really massive, could be causing such effects - astronomers galore went blind trying to spot such a planet. It wasn't until Einstein came that the mystery was solved.
The point is: you cannot expect any theory to explain each and every observed phenomenon right from day one - that's NEVER happened in the history of science. There's a lot of stuff that Lambda-CDM doesn't explain adquately, plus it's a capricious theory that requires astronomers to be constantly adjusting the amount of dark matter present in different areas of the universe (and sometimes even in adjacent galaxies) in order to fit the observations, plus it's really not-elegant and, after all these years, dark matter has NEVER been observed, not once, and for some reason the closest stars to us do not seem to be affected in the slightest by its pressence (there was a study by a bunch of astronomers using the observatory in the Chilean mountains for several years to measure to incredible precision the acceleration of the 100 closest stars to us - **all** of them had accelerations consistent with the observable matter, with absolutely no acceleration due to dark matter) , which in itself disproves the idea that dark matter would fill all the "blank" space within the galaxy - thus introducing yet another mistery in L-CDM: why would dark matter clump only in the outskirts of our galaxy??? MOND and their kin are far more elegant, require less unknowns and thus pass the Occam test. Eventually we'll stumble upon a theory that explains everything, but we're not there yet.
Much like the "dark star" has been a known concept since 1784 until it was mathematically proven centuries later and finally proven a few decades ago.
The strong nuclear force does not follow the inverse square law, else the whole universe would be a giant atomic nucleus. Electromagnetic radiation APPEARS to follow the inverse square law. Gravity does too, at least for “small” Solar System sized distances. What if, for galactic and interstellar distances, gravidy dies not fall of according to inverse square law?
It's clearly a quasi-Mond/Mond interaction. Let me know if I'm correct and when I can expect to receive the Nobel.
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2020 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS IS >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A prize for quasiMond can only be awarded in Notre Dame de Paris
@@thenasadude6878 BOY YOU MUST BE FUN AT PARTIES !!
Any chance you would do a Q and A live stream? Love every vid you upload bro!
I wouldn't use the word "crazy" to describe alternative theories. That's not very scientific.
@Stig Martin To be fair I just looked through the comments, see none of what you're saying.
Perhaps don't take the word literally. It's just an expression.
Alternative theories are great because they indicate a creative approach to problems of knowledge; if no alternative theories existed then science as we know it would not exist. Even if an alternative theory is disproven it can still provide inspiration down the road for science fiction writers.
Fritz Zwicky also deserves credit for the concept of dark matter. He, too, noticed that the velocity of the outer parts of the galaxies was too great and proposed a different source of gravity to explain it, long before Vera Rubin.
How about electromagnetic plasma?
not alone you need matter and gravity.
Electromagnetic force is more powerful then gravity; So you don't need as much mass with charged particles, and since electromagnetic force repulses and attracts mass it can mimic gravity;
Not enough range
@@bmc7434 good point. many people believe that the electromagnetic force ( not gravity) is what actually started clumping matter together to form solar systems.
@@bmc7434 electromagnetism geta newtralized at the end, cant be electromagnetism alone.
Thank you for all ur hard work putting out Awesome videos.
"We don't know what it is, we can only conjecture from some gravitational effects that are apparently greater than they're supposed to be, but we're going to pretend we know what things would be like without something we don't understand because......well........because next week is our government funding review."
Padump-chishhhhh.
YES !! I just said that's what Congress does
@@TOMAS-lh4er I love how he keeps referring to these witch doctors as scientists. "..she BELIEVED in a kind of...and slowly moved away from BELIEVING in dark matter as a kind of particle."
Scientists don't believe anything, they carefully weigh the available evidence and make judgements as to which hypothesis best explains it. These people are like Medieval monks debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ;)
@@archenema6792 NOW THAT cracked me up !!
Great video! Hope you don't mind but I submitted a corrected version of the auto generated captions to this one. RUclips auto-captions often get it wrong and it was bugging me :)
Keep the great videos coming, I love the topics you choose to cover!
Yeah, let's simulate something we don't know what is it and remove that something we don't know what is it. Sounds legit
You can recognize a mass without knowing what posesses it.
I think that's what CONGRESS does !!??
using data vs imaginary data
It seems like a good idea. We might notice behavior that gives us insight into where the extra mass is coming from.
Remove that that isn't there. Sounds good to me
OH BOY A SUPER INTERESTING TOPIC I CANT WAIT TO LEARN ABOUT THANKS ANTON!
Why are you shouting
@@rokibeeskiroodroki9018 Excited? Understandable.
ROKIBE ES KIROODROKI I WAS EXCITED
I'm only a retired tow truck. driver and I cant wait to see his videos , I learn so much ! especially from the Wonderfull Persons that are really smart and really debate a comment ! LOVE IT !
TOMAS that’s awesome man! Glad you love space
Dark matter is a cosmological band aid destined to cover the huge fail of standard cosmology to explain the universe.
Correct, all is accounted for if you consider pre-matter, ionized particles, the plasma that permeates all of the universe. Scientists keep looking for atomic matter, key word atomic. They do not count any pre-matter, the building blocks of all matter, the plasma that all the atomic matter is constructed of as a process of spin in opposing dual toroidal vortexes. Considering this matter regarding matter, as laid out in electric/plasma cosmology negates the need to keep chasing ghosts around that don't exist. There is no dark matter, there is charged plasma. Problem solved. I will be available for my Nobel Peace Prize in physics anytime it is ready. Well actually it should go to somebody like Hannes Alfven who worked through these problems decades ago and it can go with his other one already awarded regarding magnetohydrodynamics.
@@vincetalkz Would we be able to detect THAT much plasma? I'm no physicist and I have no real idea what you tried to explain. I won't even try to act like I do. But if this plasma you're talking about is normal matter in a plasma state (which I'm thinking it is), then we should be able to detect it, right? Why haven't we seen evidence that it is there? That is just A LOT of normal matter, as plasma, hanging out.
@@MrFreakHeavy It is NOT normal matter. It does not count as matter in physics. Look at it this way. Lets say we were looking for cars inside a car assembly plant, but there we find NO cars. we walk past thousands of doors, windows, seats, partially completed cars, but can find no cars and say then that the auto plant has no detectable cars, yet what it does have is the potential to be innumerable cars. This is what I mean about matter. Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons are the building blocks of ALL matter, and the universe is packed with them in cold and charged states, the charged ones we see in nebula, but none of them count as ATOMIC MATTER, because atomic matter is composed of a combination of these elementary particles. This is even if there is enough of them out there (which there is) to potentially comprise and be assembled into this the missing 95% of matter they cannot find. Modern physics ignores this PRE MATTER in its equations.
Vince Talkz Plasma is said to be separate from normal matter in 'normal physics', but is this how it's treated in astrophysics specifically as well? Also, how do you know all this? It sounds plausible but I'd like some reading material if you recommend anything
@@MuffinTastic Well since you asked. There is a recognized branch of science called Plasma Cosmology that explains the foundation principles of what we understand about the universe from a very different perspective. However, it is dismissed as a red headed step child in academic circles and just a mental exercise not to be taken seriously in any way. I beg to differ. There is also a branch of alternative science called Electric Universe Theory. It is considered outright heresy by academic cosmologists. I once again beg to differ. Here is the basic core belief of both of these schools of thought which offend the sensibilities of most modern academics. According to each of these SCIENCES, gravity is not the be all, do all, and end all cause of the core functions of the universe. The earth centric, sun centric view where the things we witness around us are caused by these globular matter centric bodies through the effects of gravity alone is challenged by these theories. This controversial view that is often dismissed is that the electric/plasma that permeates the so called void and vacuum of space (it is not a void, as it is choke full of energy, in pre matter form) is the driver of and the creator of everything, as this energy is assembled into matter in 3d printing machines we call galaxies, suns, and planets. No burning hydrogen ball sun or accretion disk model needed. Sun is a plasma ball with birkland currents extending from its poles connecting it to other structures in this network of fractal dual toroidal vortices driven by electromagnetic forces. The electromagnetic force is millions of times more powerful than gravity in this view. This theory/science states that we are the product of the energy we see around us as opposed to the energy we see around us being a product of our sun and gravity. That is an oversimplification that some may wish to criticize me on, but i cannot type here all evening trying to share about this. I will share some links below, but with specific reservations.
I am an autodidact and polymath who has been researching these matters as well as comparative mythology for quite some time to uncover the message that I believe has been left to us by our ancestors regarding cyclical cycles of destruction at the hand to phenomena we have not witnessed in modern history. I will be releasing much of my research soon..
I hope for the purpose of exploration and answering your questions that this is OK and that my comments and the below links are OK Anton, as I know the first link I am about to offer is controversial in the mainstream scientific community.
Well it seems that links I have been sharing have led to many of my comments being ghosted.
I will try and leave enough information for you and others to find what I am referring to.
Go to Thunderbolts Project RUclips channel
I suggest you watch everything in their channel EXCEPT anything to do with the Saturn Polar Configuration theory that the founder, Michael Talbott has been running with for decades that IMHO tarnishes the worth and acceptance of ALL the other good science that has been produced surrounding this core theory. I have learned in life to self analyze, especially when promoting controversial matters. Mr Talbott should do so as well. In the decades since this faulty part of this theory has been conceived, much scientific data has been created that unequivocally disproves it.
Look for the pdf by this title for an explanation.
Search Results
Web results
Problems with the Saturn Myth's Polar Configuration
Regarding the rest of the electric/plasma universe theories ideas, I have only found confirmation after confirmation, much of it coming in modern (within the last couple years) peer reviewed scientific papers.
When at the Project Thunderbolts channel please pay extra special attention to the work of Don Scott who has presented his work by invitation to NASA and many other groups. Also Peter Mungo has some amazing work regarding past earth magnetic anomalies and possible ground plasma events that have in part shaped our planet.
This below titled video alone will open your mind to the wealth of knowledge this science has been amassing that the scientific community generally dismisses as lunacy. Enjoy.
Arthur Ramthun: Plant Electrotropism | EU2015
At Project Thunderbolts channel
Some would say everything's electric and plasma on some level if perceived in the right time frame.
We are the product of plasma/electrical processes, as are trees, planets and more. Have fun exploring 時計仕掛け and everybody else.
Love videos man..keep up the good work..
FINALLY! There is no such thing as 'dark matter'
Electric Universe
I would really like to see some galaxy models using plasma/electric universe approaches
This is the earliest I have ever been to one of Anton's videos!! 10th comment!!
FYI WE took a vote awhile back and decided that the Wonderful Persons that say that , are no-longer Wonderfull .
@@TOMAS-lh4er Wait, whaaa?
@@TheRogueRockhound OK YOU CAN STAY
And still no-one cares
@@australien6611 largely presumptuous but thanks for the feedback.
Hannes Alfven and the plasma astronomers put forward a far more satisfying explanation than Mond, and you don't have to modify Newtonian dynamics to do so. It also explains why galaxies and the stars themselves lie on giant Birkeland current style filaments
Are you surprised that the equations work, those equations that were intentionally created for the purpose? 🧐
The same can be said for any physics theory. The gain is that the "correct" one is the simplest description (that is rigid, explain all the observation, and success in making predictions).
@@zhiqiangyan1554To me a theory consists of two parts - equations and a narrative (or story). The math is used to make predictions, and the narrative is used to get an understanding. Once the math fits the observations well enough, it tends to stay around for a long time. But the narrative is a completely different story, and MOND doesn't have one at all, or does it? Examples:
Lorentz ether theory shares many equations with Einstein's theories, and some have said that both are indistinguishable from each other. LET has a more intuitive narrative than relativity, and should therefore give you a better understanding. But people still prefer the story of curved spacetime, for some reason.
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical framework with a whole bunch of different narratives, i.e. the different interpretations.
Now, what is the story of MOND? The Electric Universe is the opposite - they have a story but not much math.
As this may be a result of space-time curvature I would hypothesize that time itself might be the key as time runs slower near the center of the galaxies and faster far from the center. The same could apply in the whole universe enhancing the acceleration of expansion. Just a thought.
"Dark matter" is just a plugin to make the math and observations work.. Typical theroretic guessing game
And people act like dark matter is the gospel of gods, and call you heretic for being sceptical.
@@TheMegaOne1000 I agree but dont speak too soon or risk falling victim to the very crime you claim they commit.
You can say the same about electron.
That's why science does not claim that sciencentific theories are 100% true but are just what we see most probable explanations based on our current knowledge. And no, it's not a "guessing game" but carefully calculated and tested what would be the most probable explanation.
TTime685
Definitely not a plug-in. One must explain gravitational lensing and the rotational velocities of galaxies.
The answer may not be dark matter but there is evidence for it. Dark matter is just a term and not a thing as of yet, as no one knows exactly what it is.
I'm glad you corrected yourself and said "hypothesis" instead of "theory". Then you immediately called them theories again.
"Hypothesis" or "theoretical models" is what I would call them. But it's your show. BTW: I love your show.
I'm glad he's not perfect because this stuff would be too intimidating to me , cause I'm not a scientist .
*Hypothesis* -- a supposition or proposed explanation made on the
basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
*Theory* -- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Cut him some slack
There is NO dark matter just dark dust lol! We live in a plasma universe
Anton, you rock dude. Keep up the great work!
Plasma Cosmology.
5:48 Ash nazg darbatuluuk, Ash nazg gimbatul, Ash nazg thrakatuluuk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!
Nothing dark matters 😀😀😀....
.... I'll show myself out....
Thank you Anton.
So this is a long-winded way of saying "still dunno lol"
Science in a nutshell
Thank you for your insights!
5:37 let it not become the new flat earth pls lmao
@Anton Petrov Thank you again.
Thanks for all your topics on the our universe. for me it maybe not one or the other is right but a combination of the three or so models. We live in a wonderful universe.
The biggest issue with MOND is that it's Newtonian. The second biggest is that it basically alters computation for data-fitting but lacks any reason for existing other than "I don't like dark matter..."
I'm so glad scientists are keeping an open mind about dark matter. Most conspiracy or anti-science people assume dark matter is accepted as truth by mainstream science, when it's more the absence of truth; a placeholder to fill the massive knowledge void of galactic influence. It's theories like this that may eventually lead to more answers, hopefully in my lifetime.
Anton is underrated!!
Gravity at a distance is like action at a distance, a way to commune faster than light...
Thanks heaps mate ! :-D interesting for sure.
Dark matter is just the gravitational effect of our universe interacting with the matter of another dimension. We can't actually interact with it but its imposed on our plain. Sorta like how different radio frequencies don't interfere with each other.
I always kind of had a problem with the Dark Matter theory. Just at times it came off "heck if i know, let me add numbers from nowhere and now my equation works!". That basis alone had red flagged it for me, not saying there isn't a thing or most likely multiple thing we do not understand yet or even incorrect, but it did bump the skepticism for me.
Wonderful Anton!!!
Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Labs did a dimilar thing years ago by firing 2 plasmoids at each other; they settled into a rotating spiral disk.
Dr Donald E Scott took it further in his White paper Force-Free Field Aligned Currents. Black Holes and Dark Matter not required to model recorded galactic behaviours.
Basically an area that is lit up enough that you can see everything , or using a different math model.
Wouldn't it be cool if all the dark matter was really just dark chocolate? Very cool and delicious!
MOND has the huge advantage over WIMPs and MACHOs that its formulae, which were originally adjusted ad-hoc by Milgrom on the basis of best-fit to the observations, can be derived (sortof) from first principles if you accept Quantized Inertia theory. The fact that the formula and the constant values derived from QI are not exactly the same as those empirically gotten by Milgrom means there are still unknowns in QI for it to completely represent reality
Perhaps combined gravitational mass warps bend space outwards causing objects to fall apart.
Not really true. Earth's place in the Milky Way is in a section that requires invisible mass to conform to classical Newtonian Dynamics. Probably not a we'll enough known fact that Milky Way is a dark matter necessity galaxy type I guess.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a galaxy's gravitational pull isn't dictated by its center alone.
The black hole at the center of our galaxy for instance is somewhere below ~1% of the milky way's mass right
If you ONLY had the black hole and the stars at the edges, yeah, they'd go slow, but instead you have a cluster of a rather ridiculously large number of celestial bodies swarming around the singular point.
This makes it more like being on a carousel and holding out a variably stretchy rope, the less gravitational pull at the center, the weaker the rope, the more it stretches. Same goes for the opposite, more gravitational pull at the center, the stronger the rope.
So if we make our mystical rope tether to the center of the milkway galaxy, and say we have all the current mass of the milky way galaxy unmodified;
This would be a relatively stiff rope, the bonds of each star by gravity being the wound-together threads that are woven hastily at first but work into a beautiful array.
If you attatched our solar system to the end, and spun at the speed of the milky way, the rope would extend to a point, but due to the so-called "Stiffness" or resistance to elasticity would slow the rate by which we traveled in a spiral that would slowly increase in diameter as it went, eventually coming to rest probably 70% of the distance to the visible ends of the galaxy itself, secured gradually until essentially the forces acting upon it force it to come to rest at a certain position within the rotation.
It would actually be MORE difficult to assume that it should spin slower at the outer reaches, because once again, the center of the galaxy does hold a lot of mass, but it is far from all of it, and besides, gravity treats spacetime more like a blanket stretched out at the corners with a ball rolling on it causing it to dip and create and well, gravity is a 4th dimensional concept by which things fall into other more massive things because of this gravity well sort of effect, if you have enough balls rolling in the dip and they're also all connected to one another, yeah they're gonna try to equalize their speed naturally
Hypothesis: MOND can work on the galactic scale, but the universal scale is dark matter.
Reasoning: We've had theories in the past which tried to understand the same phenomenon, but couldn't quite meet in the middle until something or someone came along to bridge that gap. In a sense, Lambda CDM and MOND are trying to explain the same thing, but perhaps they need one another to make a complete theory that works in all cases.
Of course, I could be dead wrong on this one, but I'm used to second guessing myself at this point.
You can see he's a decent guy and deserves the good that comes his way. Great video!!
People have been simulating the universe long before dark matter was included, and it always ended up looking like what we thought the universe looked like at the time. The only difference i've seen over the decades is better resolution and smoothness..