he was right in some sense, dude could have been called a god if he stood up with his original idea (cosmological constant). Now we'd know him not only for E=mc2 or relativity but also for gravity :D
@@richardaitkenhead "Dark" just means that doesn't measure or interact with matter the way we know how to interact with and the way we understand it. Hard to disagree with something we don't know, that's a nonsecuater
Electric Universe theory is far more coherent. If you'd like to understand why the "standard" model of physics is so gravely flawed, you'll need to undergo a paradigm shift in thinking.
Thank you very much, this video was purely awesome. Just because of you I can now make a better presentation about dark energy. Keep up the good work, and props to the animation guy, he/she did a great job.
I've just come up with a hypothesis for dark energy, when a sphere is rotated the part coming towards you appears to expand, whilst the part moving away appears to contract, likewise in the Universe there are two main systems that have contracting & expanding space-time, that of Black Holes & the Universe as a whole respectively, my idea is that these are the two "Poles" of a rotating hyper-dimensional Universe. It may be that the expansion isn't real but only apparent.
5:33 considering repulsive gravity, once a black hole collapses, the repulsive gravity should become stronger and stronger to the point where the very black hole should expand. But since it twists our space and time towards a single point thus creating a hole in our spacetime, the expansion can only happen in an alternate universe (in a form of a big bang). That would mean we are currently living in such a black hole that resides in an alternate parallel universe, and the dark energy (the expansion of our universe) is our momma black hole "feeding" on matter in its own universe.
Things with mass curve spacetime. So it curves the path of an object. It was tested on light. Light has no mass. So if gravity were a force, it would not work on light. The path light follows through curved spacetime is exactly as predicted by Einstein. Also, gravity does not pull nor push. When you are in free fall, you are actually stationary in spacetime. You're not accelerating. If you were accelerating relative to spacetime, you'd be able to measure the force of it. (in G's...like the G's you would experience in a rocket).
It might be the gravity is an effect caused by the expansion of space. Expanding space also expends higgs fields that interact with mass particles. There is much more space outside the matter so we might imagine the gravity as being the outside pressure caused by the expending outside space and outside higgs field that push down and go trough the matter.
Einstein believed that the universe should make sense without "spooky" like dark matter and energy. Remember, these things are fudges to make the math work out and sort fit observations. It makes more sense to think of history....Newton explained a lot but observations didn't quit fit......Einstein see the missing part and then corrects the errors in Newton. So, that means we need to find the concept, non-spooky, to correct the errors in Einstein's equations and observations. Quantum inertia???? Maybe, some improved relativity?
As I currently understand it to be, modern science recognizes that from a singular, very small, very dense, mass that basically existed in another dimension, (dimensions for me being defined as having different forces of nature, ours weren't in existence yet, but yet that mass had to exist and expand somehow, someway and had to have some sort of forces of nature that it existed by), everything in existence in this universe, including the forces of nature that it all operates by, all came into existence. BUT, WHAT IF: 1. That singular mass wasn't so small? 2. That singular mass expanded in basically a 360 degree spherical shape? 3. That our universe is basically spherical with a hollow center? 4. That galaxies are actually expanding "up" and away from this central dimension that the singular mass existed in? 5. From our perspective in this universe, wouldn't we still perceive galaxies far from ours appear to be speeding up away from each other and away from us? (With the possible exception of a very slim line of galaxies along our "upward" expanding portion)? 6. If we existed long enough, would light photons "bend" around the spherical horizon to show us that the universe is spherical? Kind of like when early humans thought that the Earth was flat but yet in time found out it really wasn't?
The faintest galaxies are the most remote from us but are also the most remote in time? So those closer to us are more recent and slower? So aren’t things slowing down rather? Please explain why this thinking is wrong.
Funny how we stress how weak gravity is yet still felt it would hinder the expansion of our universe. . .now i wanna say i've heard the expansion is taking place at a rate equal to or greater than the speed of light. Either i didnt hear it right or perhaps they were wrong? But if this were true, wouldnt that render it impossible to see light originating from a source moving away from us at the same rate? Or would we see light from something long gone??
What if there is one fundamental source from which all matter, energy and everything that exists in our universe arises from, similar to a program in a computer. Then the strange properties of the expansion of the universe could simply belong to a different algorithm than any of the forces we can measure (gravity etc) that affect particles and atoms. If that is the case then "dark energy" perhaps doesn't exist, space is simply like a "canvas" or a grid which contains matter and energy and is configured to expand at a certain rate. That could also explain the instantaneous communication between particles in quantum entanglement experiments. Because at the root fundamental level there is no distance and no dimensions, it all arises from the same program, so no matter how large the universe is it's all ultimately connected in one single program. And I'm not necessarily suggesting that we are living in a simulation created by something, there could simply be an infinite sea of these "programs" and our universe arose from one of them. If we accept that particles that behave in very specific ways can "pop into existence where there is nothing", then why not accept that a type of program that determines everything within our universe can do the same. At some point there exists something rather than nothing, and if that is true (which it must be) then why should there be a rule which says "only X can pop into existence from nothing, but not Y, because Y is complex".
Could open space have opposite space time curvature, or the Universe itself tends to have positive space time curvature? This would create anti gravity pushing galaxies apart, but as you get to the boundary, it would cross over into standard curvature and gravity would go the right way inside the galaxy?
Distant galaxies moving away from us appear reddish. But, relatively speaking, if they were stationary and we were being pulled into our galactic center's black hole faster and faster, the doppler effect seen would be the same. Or then again, maybe both are true, universe expanding plus we are being pulled towards our galactic center's black hole. Has anybody ever looked for a "blue shift" of energy between Earth and our galactic center's black hole along our spiral arm of our galaxy? Would probably be a complex curve also, kind of like a pin wheel. In addition, if space and time were not truly a one to one relationship, maybe although space might be expanding, maybe time is slowing down at a faster rate as energy interactions slow down in this universe as the energy in this universe gets less and less dense. This could also possibly give us an illusion of a space expanding faster and faster.
In my opinion, the universe is expanding and meanwhile we are being affected by the black hole in the Milky Way. BUT we ARENT being pull toward it. Why? Is gravity on holiday? No. In fact, it is trying its best. To understand this, you have to know that there is space between us and the back hole. Every space in our universe are all expanding EQUALLY, so DOES the space between the black hole and us. The reason that the Milky Way isn't being pull apart is that the gravitational pull of its black hole is winning the battle against the expansion of space. But then the force of gravity is no longer enough to pull us toward it, and hence we aren't being pull at all. ( Or it has very little effect on us )
The current matter in the universe that scientists look at does not include chemical element #119 (8s1) that would exist inside black holes and chemical element #120 (8s2) that would exist inside stars. You would have to have all the matter that actually exists to have an equation about the matter in the universe that actually exists, to properly equate.
So where do electromagnetic forces come in? In the vacuum of space, these properties of matter behave differently than any earth based perspective notions regarding gravity. Also, I thought the speed of light is a constant in any reference frame. So why do we get a red or blue frequency shift really? I'm listening,....
What if the reason its dark is it doesn't exist in our universe but we feel its influence because how both place came in to being are directly related.
I have a theory the universe has fallen and crushed itself an infinite amount of times and every time it resurrects itself it becomes bigger and badder which explains the overwhelming scale
As one of my physics professors in university said, "If your idea and your evidence disagree, first verify your evidence then, if that still works, change your idea. Too many people have the unfortunate habit of rejecting the evidence because it disagrees with their preconceived ideas." Not an exact quote, but it carries the idea.
Yes, I would assume that as well. Which is our big problem. The known universe keeps getting larger only because our instrumentation gets better. The concept of infinitely large seems to have escaped our postulations.
Maybe dark energy is everywhere at the calculated 10 power112; then space expands into dark energy which is reduced by dark matter or quantum gravity in space to 10 power-8
From your explanation of the way the comparison, between Red-Shift and brightness of 1A Supernovas, are done suggests that one of the two methods is wrong. I do not see how this could be translated to mean that there is a hidden Dark Energy. Correct me if I am wrong, please!
Because he's talking about what we see (light coming from it) versus what we know is there (its effects). We know dark energy is there because we see the universe accelerating. We know dark matter exists because we can see the gravitational effects, but not light coming from it.
This is just a thought but, if diffused hydrogen/helium gas makes 5% of all matter+energy then, wouldn't the overall refractive index of space (assuming space is homogeneous over large scales) be >1? giving the illusion, "That the stars were farther away than expected." Or was that already taken into account?
Why does there need to be an amount of matter for you to be happy. Dark matter and dark energy are still theoretical arnt they? We're these things invented to complete a mathematical equation?
@@mysterymeat586People who publish are morons. They just need more LSD, for insightfulness, and then transmit their thought waves into the mind of others.
what if beyond our 'known universe' is a infinite amount of matter which we cannot ever see. And that matter is the source of gravity that causes the acceleration of our galaxies. The Europeans didn't know about North America until Columbus. This is just arm chair idea that seems simple. Dark Energy seems to be a contrivance to solve an observed phenomenon. I'm probably wrong, but I just have to ask.
And what if time is expanding as so the 3D universe? The "second" would be "bigger" than "before". And if time is expanding but our perception of time does not, it appears that universe expands faster. That's just a theory. Let theorical physicits discuss it. ^^
Why is it called dark energy? Energy should have a source and due to entropy energy once used up should become useless. Can't it be a fifth force which is repulsive in nature and acts over very long distances thereby overcoming gravity? Part of the Red Shift which is observed for far away galaxies can be a manifestation of this force. Is this possible?
Many things are possible, but how will you test your hypothesis? "Dark Energy" is just a name. It does not imply anything by itself. There is an observed phenomenon. It isn't completely understood what its causes and effects are, so it just gets a label. Call it, "Weird Wind" or "Invisible Farts" or whatever you want.
No just matter which will be turned/emited as light , for example stars emits their mass as light and black holes emits too like some form of radiation , some planets and moons and asteroids will be live until universe die and lastest source of light will be smallest stars and after them there will be white dwarfs which has ultra long live time.
we call universe only the observable universe, we dont know how big is really the all universe only the part the light has reach us, so we probably never know big is it cause the light will never reach us.
There is no point in time, as time does not exist outside of space. Everything is just estimated measurements from year 0, when Jesus was born as it happens.
So does gravity actually contract space itself, just the opposite of dark energy? If so why wouldn't dark energy be considered a 5th fundamental force?
We haven't figured out what is it yet and it is not a force, it's energy. By the way, gravity hasn't been explained using quantum mechanics and many people doubt it is a force as well. It makes the curvature of space-time, but this is another subject.
Good explanation. But I would like to say something. Einstein had not discovered the gravity. He just used Isaac Newton’s idea and law of physics about gravity. Einstein just had talked about the topics he has never understood. Actually he did not add anything to physics as law of physics. Also Relativity is not physics😊
Dark energy is just illusion caused by the gravitational distortion caused by the gravitational fields of distant galaxies. How do you think light escapes super heavy distant galaxies with its frequency visually unaffected by spacial distortions? The same spacial distortion bending light paths, also distorts the frequency of light emitted from such super heavy distant galaxies. Gravity from distant galaxies has a redshift effect on the frequency of light they emit in the same way that gravity can bend the path of light from a light source behind the gravitational field. There is no cosmic acceleration, no dark energy causing this apparent acceleration, no unaccounted for dark matter, and certainly, no big bang. This universe is eternal, without beginning or ending. Cosmic background microwaves are but distant galaxies who's light has been gravitationally distorted beyond your visible spectrum. Galaxies continually exchange and recycle energy and birth new stars out of old dead ones for ever and ever. Someday sapien's decendents will travel to distant galaxies and discover the return trip doesn't take require extra travel time as no acceleration is actually occuring
UTTER POPPYCOCK. Time machine Webb looks out into the beginning of time when the universe was expanding faster then, over there. Remember there is no space outside of the universe. There is no dark energy.
5:57 Dude isn't famous?? How come i know his name? Does dark matter have negative mass and is dark energy really just the other pole of gravity? Like if matter exhibits gravity similar to how hypothetical monopole magnets would exhibit electromagnetism, only opposite where negative and negative would attract and positive and positive would attract and negative and positive would repel?? I mean that would make sense. We obviously wouldn't find any matter of the opposite pole of mass here on earth since it would be repelled from the pole of the earths mass/gravity field. And if both were created in some amounts during big bang the universe would consist of two different flavors of matter that repel each other, so the universe keep expanding at an accelerating rate.
Nope, Gravity is diminishing with distance squared. Dark energy is not. So they cannot be related. And please try to manage your Aspergers :-) Don't worry I have it too.
Thanks Dr Lincoln, could it be that what we perceive as dark energy is evidence the universe is spinning in a higher dimension, i.e. as the universe expands, the centrifugal force imparted by spin is causing gravity to increasingly yield as things get more stretched out.
My own view - If a dark matter and dark energy where higher dimensional I have read that we could not see either phenomenon. If either are only higher dimensional than our 3D space time, then we would never detect them without understanding how to detect higher dimensional physics. I wonder if either are multi dimensional and we just realise how to notice it.
Patrick Leahey sorry, no citations, but I do remember it being said many times that dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with each other, it's just in the name, bark meaning something we don't know, but they are completely dfferent things.
Applied science is great in many ways, especially modern medicine. But, in terms of theoretical science, modern science is so far behind the Buddhists and Vedantins that it's laughable.
What if dark energy is galactic pressure created by all the supernovas that have ever blown up.wouldnt that explain the speeding up, all the incremental explosions would just keep increasing.
Imagine a balloon containing air and kept in air tight seal box. Now start removing air from the box.. balloon starts expanding. If you are inside the balloon u would feel the expansion with imaginary force u call dark energy no other explanation.🙏 Same way we're experiencing dark energy. It's simple to explain dark energy
Ranzan's DSSU dynamic steady state universe includes his brilliant idea that explains redshift. The DSSU is infinite & consists of large cosmic cells where aether is produced near center & annihilated in supermassive stars near edge (not important here)(just interesting). Photons travelling throo each cell are stretched when approaching mass (stars) & likewize stretched when departing mass -- stretching gives redshift. The further the travel the more the stretching & redshift. Cahill explains that the accelerating expansion is fudged. Arp explains that redshift aint redshift. Look them up. The BigBang is rubbish. Dark Matter might be true. Dark Energy is rubbish. Einsteinian BlackHoles are rubbish. SR & GR are rubbish. We are living in the Einsteinian dark age of physics -- the Einsteinian mafia control our universities & institutions & funding -- dogma & censorship rule. The aether will be back.
Your Quark and photon graphics are painfully primitive, and everything you're saying is something you read in a book [that you definitely didn't write]. If you knew the solution to "dark energy" you wouldn't be saying that the Universe is inflating. You should work harder to come up with something original, copycat science has grown to epidemic proportions at this point in history. This is an example of what I call "scientific regurge," which is what the majority of science shows on television do.
