You’ve really found your niche, Brian. These conversations are great listening, and educational. It takes a huge amount of knowledge to make what you do work, and that is the real you. I really admire your depth of knowledge, candour, …and the pace that these talks take. I have my own views on how all of this works, but enjoy having other people tell me how wrong I am, because out of that turmoil comes innovation of thinking.
Our pleasure! Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating I think every single word of the people like him is a takeaway. I really enjoyed the whole conversation, but I like the way he said while talking about the hot big bang: the universe was even hotter than hell.
@@DrBrianKeating What I liked best? I liked Michael’s admission he has no clue what dark energy is. Well, let me suggest a compromise. I will go with dark energy to explain the redshift we see, but I will define it as the markup of the fabric of our own galaxy, i.e. the stuff our galactic grid in majority is made up of. So it is not that we have a blurry redshifted outside world, it is just that the ‘dark energy’ galactic glasses we have to look through, is giving us this blurry redshifted image outside of our galaxy. Mind you we have proof of this blurry dark energy glasses effect, because the photons coming from our galactic core are ALSO redshifted, AND they invert our image of Sag A* 90 degrees (QP effect we call Fraunhofer diffraction) while FLATTENING the image of the sag A* centre spacetime grid. So think of our yellowish central milky way ‘bar’ as the orthogonal edge-on view of our central spiral. So then; Dark Energy I will except, just not its extragalactic location. Agreed Michael? Some more goodies: If dark energy makes up the fabric of our galactic plane, in which overlapping emergent spacetime bubbles around stars form, then the area between the galactic spiral arms would be energy dominated, not spacetime dominated (since almost no stars). This means the distance from the galactic core to outer stars of our galactic arms in spacetime terms is much SMALLER than we perceive it to be. Thus, their absolute rotation speeds are far less. So then, now we solved the anomaly of too fast rotation curves and no linger need dark matter. . Solved that one as well.
🎵Grandma got runned over by dark energy Comin’ home from our house Christmas Eve You may say there’s no such thing as cold dark matter But as for me and Grandma, we believe!🎶
Do you think Dark Energy is related to Cosmic Inflation? By the way , I love teaching. If you like learning lessons from Nobel Prize Winners, billionaires, astronauts and authors about space, huge telescopes, leadership and the universe, Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list ✉️
Hello Brian, in answer to your question, No!! I believe that Dark energy is one of the two forces of gravity and is the negative force of repulsion created by a cloud of extremely small negatively charged Monopole Particles, called ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space that is not a nucleus or embryonic Hydrogen (Antimatter ). These patrticles are the ' Dark Matter '. The negative force that it produces is the 'Dark Energy '.It is the cosmological constent and one of the two forces of gravity. I have an hypothesis that fully explains how this works, and I am happy to send you a copy of my latest draft if you are really interested in looking at a radical new idea. I also do not believe that the universe is expanding, I believe that this idea is a misconception of what the CMBR and Redshift, which I explain logically in my Hypothesis. I have tried to send this to you before, but you have not responded. I believe that science needs multiple expertese, people to come up with ideas, and people to tests these ideas. Just consider the below simple experiment that anyone can do at home that proves the force of Dark Energy, produced by the Dark Matter, and the two forces of gravity that I propose. I believe that everything that exists in the unverse is conposed of just two incridibly small Monopole particles, one is the negatively charged Monopole Particles I have described as ' Harveytrons ', and the other is a corresponding positively charged Monopole particle called a ' Dannytron ', which only exists in baryionic nuclei, and embryonic Hydrogen { Antimatter ). Kind regards, Tony Marsh, 73 year old sucessful inventor with patents granted. Possible proof of repulsive force. If gravity were just a force of attraction, when a drop of liquid is dropped into a volume of liquid, it would be held tightly and just spread out and merge. But it does not do this, it rebounds back off of the surface, and as it rises up, there is a column of liquid tapering at the top but the point is pinched off forming a perfect sphere. This does not accord with just a force of attraction, but would accord with the type of gravity that I describe, with the ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud pushing in every direction, pushing the repulsed drop upwards forming the drop. As the force of attraction is slightly stronger than the force of repulsion, the drop and the column of liquid eventually combines with the bulk of the liquid. In cosmology, if gravity were just a force of attraction, it would be hard to explain what stops planets and galaxies from merging into one solid mass. In rotating galaxies this can be explained by the interacting forces of centrifugal force and the attractive force of gravity. However, this would not explain why galaxies do not combine, particularly those that are parallel with each other. The only logical explanation is to have a repulsive force in the universe as I am proposing. A very simple experiment to show a repulsive force is as follows. Take two pieces of A4 paper that are completely flat and not under any stress from bending. Cut a strip lengthways from the pair about 1 ¼ inches wide. Cut 3 or 4 smaller pieces from a similar strip to form squares, and place these between the two long strips at one end. Make a hole through the middle of the square of this top section, through which you can pass a suitable thin rod that allows the strips to swing freely. Make sure that the top pieces are pushed tight together, so that the strips hang freely down parallel to each other. Place these in a long glass vessel, such as a spaghetti jar, so that they are not influenced by air currents, cover if you think appropriate. You will notice that the gap between the two strips is slightly larger at the bottom than at the top. If the spacer between the two strips is too small, the two strips will be pulled and pushed together. This I believe shows that there does exist the negative force of repulsion acting in every direction due to the existence of the proposed ‘ Dark Matter ‘ ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud producing the ‘ Dark Energy ‘ repulsive force . I feel it also proves the existence of the two forces of gravity that I propose, where atomic matter containing the positively charged monopole ‘ Dannytron ‘ particles are attracted to each other if the distance between two atomic masses is too small. From this simple, logical experiment that shows an action, and an explanation as to why the action is happening, it will be seen that it will be possible to collate all of the data, with regard to surface area of the paper strips, their weight and distance apart etc, and devise the mathematical equations to complement the observations.
I think Dark Energy probably doesn't exist. Think about it. If the universe was a once a tiny finite size then it must have a finite amount of positive energy density. Thusly the universal conservation of energy cannot be violated. I mean, where do you think that magical infinite energy comes from in a finite universe? How does that work? How do you go from a finite amount of energy to an infinite amount? You don't "Dark Energy" doesn't exist. And yes, the universe expands there is no doubt about that. I'm saying that "Dark Energy" is really just plain ol energy. The apparent expansion of the universe is created by Cold Dark Matter. Not "Dark Energy".
I cant wait for your results Brian. I'm just as interested in the input used as I am what you find. 😮😊🎉 I also love how your identifying the real source of American enginuity and its hands on. Mechanics and technicians sons and daughters,journeyman and apprentices passing on trial and error. I love the notion of building many models to one day become a tab on my device that I can put a scientific box around a system then dig through the library of models and use the best time and place applications that fit it the best. This helps normalizes how subjective tools really are and the whole problem of what is time or nature is it realism or anti realism within society is such an unnecessary problem i encounter more than anything else over science. Its like we need a taxonomy of time and scales of nature. What is nature what is time is very much in conflict and gets in the way. As a Christian the big bang models is always a fun apologetic but its not necessary at all in my cosmogony or to my epistemology
Great interview - Michael talks with such passion that drags you along with his musings in a really fun way. Wish I was a micro fraction as smart as this. Super enjoyed it none the less.
Just as colors , Magnetic fields have spectrum lines in between each section of field strength, these correlation points is where our focused vision is stretched, giving a false sense of expansion
Kind of switched off after his opening remark: '..one thing we know for sure is that the Universe is expanding..'. O boy..here we go again. No we don't know that for sure Micheal. What we DO know for sure is that we observe redshift in furthest galaxies. The next step, attributing this redshift to suggested 'eigen motion' of these galaxies relative to us, or even expanding spacetime in between, is merely an ASSUMPTION. A good scientist, even a mediocre one, should distinguish between observation and human interpretation, the latter inherently being biased by the (limited) collected human understanding of cosmo-physics so far. I am not saying it is a dumb idea to suggest this redshift might be caused by eigen motion of galaxies or the expanding space in between. In fact that is a logic first trial for humans to suggest. But it is not the ONLY option and (spoiler alert) not the correct one either.. Just to be sure, Michael next doubles down suggesting loads of evidence. No, we have exactly ZERO proof for an expanding universe and certainly zero proof of the dark energy which is an additional (and very unlikely) epicycle to make that assumption work in the first place. Never found anything after decades that would even resemble that. What people like Michael need to learn is that in order for something to count as 'back up' or ' support of' a theory, the supporting observation must be dated AFTER the theory and not pre-date it. You cannot first have the unexpected observation, create a theory that might explain it, and then reverse the the order and declare observation 'proof' of your theory in reverse. This is a breach of kindergarten logic. This is not what will get humanity moving forward. This is what keeps us in Einsteinium chains for ever.
ok ok..maybe a bit too harsh to Michael.I listened to the entire podcast and Michael does seems like a very nice smart man. So any critique of what he says I should actually not make to him personally but to the current narratives we have come to cherish in Cosmology. We need to see that most of Cosmology comes from a few major and unexpected observations, from which we next suggested theories, for which we often needed additional fixes to makes things work. The reason we don't find new angles in cosmology is because we are overlooking a shared mistake in all three major observations. 1) When we observed rotational curves of stars in spiral arms appearing too fast we did two things; We assumed the observation is undistorted vision or ' WYSIWYG' (what you see is what you get) and we next concluded the must be missing mass or actually missing gravity which we attribute to missing mass. 2) When Hubble observed unexpected redshift in furthest galaxies, he (and we) again assumed WYSIWYG and next concluded distant galaxies are moving ever faster away form us and thus some kind of dark energy should exist. 3) When we saw the recent 90 degrees Sag a* picture 90 degrees rotated vs what was expected, we assumed WYSIWYG and have been pondering why only our own centre black hole is oriented 90 degrees from normalcy. We will soon claim dark rotation or something. So. now pause for a while. Why don't we step back and notice something; In all three instances we have to invent (never detected) dark stuff, but in all three cases we also implicitly assumed WYSIWYG as a given. So what if the solution to all that dark stuff is not related yo any unknown stuff out there, but rather to our incorrect assumption of WYSIWIG in the first place? Since all three observations have in common that they are merely photon based and all these photons pass through the fabric of our galactic plane, the most logic starting assumption has to be assuming a shared 'single point of failure' before we venture out in all kinds of exotic ideas for each individual strange observation. So we should not skip but start with the assumption the fabric of our galactic plane may fundamentally distort the images the reach us from outside our solar system / galaxy. A first candidate of such a different setup should be something we already know to be vastly different (reversed Ockham's razor ) which would be the quantum setup. We have many distortion effects there (like Fraunhofer effect) that could explain exactly what we are seeing. I suggest we start mapping the world of the small onto the world of the big and create understanding as such. Lord knows we spend too much time on dark stuff..Go the the light I say.
@@jaymethodus3421 kind of true. Mass is equivalent to inverse time. Applies to the Big Bang construct as well; So the max amount of mass (to be) formed after the Big Bang is indicate to the frequency of our ' big bang', i.e. the time it takes to max expansion and back again. Similarly; the Big Bang's singularity energy is inversely equivalent to max amount of space that can be created.quite basic, but not understood. As for the observed redshift of further galaxies; Prof Turner is not attributing this optical illusion to its correct origin. It is the energy dominated quantum setup of our galactic plane that is to blame as it causes a Fraunhofer effect for incoming light. The Fraunhofer effect is the reason why the centre of our galaxy (Sag A*) picture of the EHT telescope displays an orthogonal heads on image of our central BH while we KNOW that in reality we should seat edge on. Exactly the same happens at the edge of our galaxy; Here we see all incoming light of other galaxies 90 degrees inward diffracted before reaching our eyes. This means this light is aligned with the rotation of our own galaxy and THAT is what causes virtual redshift. Since all galaxies have the same arc speed from our position, the furthest galaxies appear to have fastest absolute speed thus bigger redshift. So indeed, redshift is indicative of DISTANCE, not real speed. Thats what JWST confirmed !!!! There are mature galaxies as far as we can see (also the suggested youngest ones) and there is no size distortion of how we see furthest galaxies which contradicts all of current cosmology. So JWST is completely destroying all we predicted and suggests indeed redshift is NOT related to speed / an expanding universe. Which in all fairness, doesn't exclude it either; nor the event of a big bang. As for the CMB; it is the inverse of the energy as the grid of our own galactic plane. It has noting today with the cosmos. This decreasing energy is congruent to the gradually expanding disk size of our galaxy and thus points to the origin of our MilkeyWay, not our Cosmos. As we spin slower our arc speed gets less, so all virtual redshifts of other galaxies will gradually get less (not more), something which is easily verified if only experimentalists would measure it. Thats why both CMB and redshift will gradually give different reading about the 'age of our cosmos' . Again, in reality neither has anything to do with the age of our cosmos. it is related to the origin of our milky way, i.e. the moment Sag a* became a naked singularity 13.8 billion years ago, allowing for (distorted) view inwards, and becoming visible to the world outside our galaxy. Much we have to learn. More we have to unlearn first.
The expansion or contraction of spacetime is based on general relativity which is has passed every observation and experiment so far. GR predicts that spacetime cannot remain static and must expand or contract depending on the matter inside it. I have no idea what alternative you are putting forward but it has to explain everything that GR has.
An expanding universe is, quite literally, the only explanation for all of the data. And no, we have evidence of dark energy too. Both of these things can be inferred from the density peaks in the CMB power spectrum. The main assumptions we’re making is that the earth isn’t in a special place in the universe.
Here are 12 of the main criticisms of the Big Bang model, briefly explained: that a cosmological model that has all these problems should not be considered a good model of the universe, even though it can apparently describe other parts that are not so essential for the existence and functioning of the model. Horizon problem: The universe appears incredibly uniform in all directions, but in the Big Bang model there would not have been enough time for very distant regions to exchange information and balance. Flatness problem: Observations indicate that the geometry of the universe is almost flat. But according to the Big Bang model, it should be much more curved. Requires very precise adjustment of the initial density. Magnetic monopole problem: Grand unified theories predict the formation of magnetic monopoles in the Big Bang, but they have not been observed. Initial singularity: The model postulates a singularity at the beginning, which is problematic because physical laws break at singularities. Dark matter and energy: The Big Bang model does not explain why 95% of the universe is composed of unknown dark matter and energy. Inability to know the beginning: You cannot say what happened before the Big Bang or determine the initial conditions. Matter-antimatter asymmetry: It does not explain why there is much more matter than antimatter in the universe. Low initial entropy: The universe began in a state of extremely low entropy, with no explanation as to why. Missing mechanisms: Does not provide a detailed mechanism for the expansion, gravitation, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Three dimensions: It does not explain why the universe has 3 spatial dimensions. Galaxy formation: Has difficulty explaining the formation of large-scale structures. Inflation: Cosmic inflation solves some problems but introduces others, and has not been confirmed.
Dear Professor Keating It would be very interesting for its people and for me, that you could explain why despite all these problems you still consider the model of the Big Bang as a good model, even when it lacks a mechanism for expansion and stability of the universe because like you surely you must know the expansion is part of the initial conditions that are introduced in the Friedmann equations and therefore there is no causal mechanism.
@@cuantin2011 the universe will end in "thermal death" *Thermal death is a desert of black holes evaporating due to the almost zero probability of accreting matter. It is a direct consequence (not simply a possible end) of taking the consensus paradigm and assuming that accelerated expansion will continue. We can do an inverse analysis of the evolution of the universe, it is important to note that the evolution of every black hole in the opposite direction of the arrow of time is the evolution of a white hole. "Thermal death" in the opposite sense can be interpreted as white holes expelling matter until they bring the universe to the "hot and dense state." Assuming that these white holes did not eject matter (for whatever reason), the universe should not reach the hot and dense state in an accelerated manner. We know that the accretion of matter from black holes does not influence accelerated expansion; by symmetry we would conclude that the expulsion of white holes does not influence accelerated contraction. This argument is true for Schwarzschild black holes where the accretion rate and the ejection rate of their time inverse coincide, but it is false in the case of Kerr black holes. The accretion of a Kerr black hole may not coincide with the ejection of its temporal inverse. Is this discrepancy a source of asymmetry capable of causing black holes not to influence accelerated expansion, but their time inverses to influence accelerated contraction
These are good questions but they question our cosmology. I like Michael's view that there are things we know for sure, like the expansion of the universe. But there are many things we don't know for sure. Many of these are referred to in this comment. Great interview Brian with an excellent guest.
After reading about Eric Lerner’s article about the Big Bang never happening, the one interesting point was about the angular size of galaxies for redshifts greater than 10 at which point galaxies would appear larger due to an optical illusion due to expanding space. I do remember hearing descriptions about this optical illusion years ago Maybe by Lawrence Krauss?? What happened to that optical illusion? Has it been observed. Because I do think that this is an interesting point and it should be observed if space is expanding..
Yes it is an observation. The further away galaxies are the smaller they appear, but since the earliest galaxies were a lot closer to us when they emitted the light (for example, a galaxy with a lookback time of 10 billion light years was roughly 3 billion light years away when that light was emitted, and to complicate it further that galaxy has now moved to about 30 billion light years away) they actually start looking larger again beyond a redshift of 1.5 (> 9 billion light years away).
@@tonywells6990 Can you give me a reference where this illusion has been observed?? I have been looking for it, but have not found it. What I have seen so far is that the farther away the smaller the Galaxy. I would appreciate a link to a source please..
Dielectric energy is still expanding instantaneously through the Nothing. Dielectric energy rotated around Nothing, creating Magnetism. Magnetism gives Magnitude to the Universe. Now, the Space Universe is imploding back into the Nothing. Nothing is mediated to center of everything. Nothing doesn't have pressure. The Aether field pressure is attracted to the no pressure of Nothing = Gravity.
I thought I may let go of the Uranus jokes when I grow up (I'm 55), but after listening to this a realize I will never let them go. Anyway, a great listening!
40 years ago, in 1983, I developed a toroidal cosmological model that predicted that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. But, since everyone "knew" that the expansion was slowing down, I discounted it.
As an alien 👽 who crashed on Earth (now I'm an American), I wonder: why don't theorists figure out what spacetime is made of? It's made of spheres that expand at the speed of light (which guarantees relativity). You're making it harder than it is.
I am not going to lie... the way you present obstacles to your guests, in a very rational, very respectful, very casual manner allows them to argue their point in good faith, and make their case. It's either weak or strong and the audience can decide. Presenting the counters or objections to their position, without taking any stance, is pretty skillful. I guess you and Lex are the only ones i've seen doing this, so it's a rare skill. (but you are more bubbly and entertaining than Lex, so.. +1 for you).
I think it is often useful to get the math out of the head and think very simple regarding cosmology and science in general, and therafter refine it with math. If we take bigbang as a fact, there must have been a sort of enormous pressur in the early universe that pushed the bigbang, and that pressure must have been greater than gravity at the grand scale. But such a pressur will not go away, it will still be there, and it will still possibly be greater than gravity at the grand scale. Out of such a simple thinking, dark energy and still accelarating expansion is no surprize. The obvious thing is to look for it and then do the math to refine the theory. But I have the impression that scientists usually go astray in their mathematical framework and that hinder them to see the obvious, until the obvious gets detected by chance.
My hunch is S8 expansion is somehow tied to dark energy and potentially dark matter. The current debate between wormholes and black holes is very exciting. The new observations of JWST and Euclid have reopened debates in physics by revealing observations that don't match our current modeling. Physics feels new again.
I agree with Mr. Turner, Euclid then Newton the observers then Einstein ruined it. Euclid had sight of the unseen and that is how he knew of the point and line.
59:55 Please ask Gerard ’t Hooft what his latest thinking about the nature of the “black hole event horizon” is! In the past he has carefully suggested some nonorthodox ideas that some would be willing to “vigorously pushback against”. In one of his lectures he got a question that was definitely in the form of pushback about what happens when an incoming “thing” encounters / traverses the event horizon and he basically avoided answering the question (probably knowing that he didn’t want to publicly acknowledge the implications of his {maybe} conjecture around what Leonard Susskind would describe as “black hole duality” issues). If I was reading (speculating) between Gerard ’t Hooft’s words correctly, his ideas, if correct, would definitely have significant implications with regard to things like “quantum gravity”.
Just because things look a certain way... Doesn't mean the ARE a particular way. I feel like dark matter and dark energy must be similiar to the invisible columns that hold up rainbows after a storm.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating First of all, as a nonnative speaker, I enjoyed listening to his clear pronunciation. Second, he seems to me a person with a warm heart and cool brain. Thanks for the interview.
What is the difference between a phase transition and inflation. I thought it was the same. But I also have this question: where’s the magnetic monopole’s which would be important for the inflation theory. I like the idea of what we know and what might be knocking on the door. As usual a very good show
OK, here's my "theory", its called "dark symmetry", which states that for every particle in the standard model there is a "dark" version of it, which forms a "dark universe" that mainly interacts with the "light universe" via gravity, and the light and dark particles have clumped together via gravity to form the astronomical/cosmological patterns we see today. So, Michael, the "prince of dark", you have to be for it!, and Brian, devise some tests! 🙂 !!!
Well yes, it may be real transparent if it's weighty information, a kind of universal memory, or a kind of transparent particle comprised of push-me pull-you or pull-me push-you acceleration particles, let's call them acceleratons, invisible massless packets of universal accelerations? Moving objects apparently shed these, and they are not always attractive but repulsive too as Ligo has shown? The universe may be awash in a vast sea, comprised of a broad spectrum of massless and transparent light speed spacetime curvature particles that comprise an invisible but real spacetime capacitive memorysphere? Feynman and a few others including Bondi? said invisible gravity waves i.e. light speed acceleration radiation, can do work via the sticky bead idea?
Gavel slams the table at 8:06 The universe is expanding. Yes we know it won't CONTRACT then and has a dilution of matter due to expansion of space-time. But NO, there is no need to think that it contracts to zero radius at the horizon. It didn't pop out like a jack in the box progression of sprung forces.The horizon tells us the age of the universe. What if space-time is born infinite in size and flat at the very beginning? Then extrapolating back just gets you back to a smaller horizon but not greatly denser matter concentration. Still infinite at 1 second. A primordial even temperature soup of infinite size.
We tend to think of good and evil as light and dark. I assume this is just a metaphor, but could the universe at some level be sentient and could dark matter/energy be an evil we should probably avoid? I'm only half joking.
Dark matter and Dark Energy are like the events that could have happened as potential on the quantum flux, but didn't form in this universe thus being a force of absence. And those who can't let go of such "death" cling to what could have been, and that if taken to extreme, leads to resentment and being haunted. Living with a darkness that over shadows any new light that could lead to a brighter state of being, thus perpetuating the final darkness.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Out of curiosity. hypothesis. As Λ (whatever it is). Does its present at the centre of singularity remain constant. Ie does Λ remain the same or does Λ Maintain a constant of probability but increases because of density. Hence, this Λ factor prevents singularity to go to infinity. As to the singularity of big bang. Does a critical energy threshold occur, bc of infinit matter infinit dark matter, and infinit Λ. That that Λ infinity acts more as LogΛ (threshold ) and perpetuates internal inflation. Like inserting compressed gas into a ballon? Or when a star goes super nova it's a bounce back of rapid compression. Just curious if that's what's going on or what role do you think does dark energy have at the singularity of a black hole and big bang?
WAS THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS EXPANDING. NO , NOT UNTIL IT WAS OBSERVED, THE MORE WE FOCUSED ON IT THE FASTER IT STARTED EXPANDING , ITS CALLED LARGE SCALE OBSERVIAL FOCUS EXPANSION CONCEPT I J MADE IT UP
BTW, there is nothing flat about the universe considering that there is no single measure of distance and no single rate of time throughout the universe.
If the universe was 10 trillion times smaller than it is today then it was still 1/100th of a light year. That's still pretty big. Much bigger than zero or a grapefruit or any of the other I've heard of. A trillion kilometres is big. I'll work out the density later 🤞
I oppose any name changes that hides the idealistic nature of dark anything. For example if we learn dark matter is somehow turning into energy then Gravity constant could possibly change as well if machs critique of newton was confirmed. The name dark matter is very nefarious as it is with intentionally making the same mistake that the name wine spirits accidentally made but still etymologically carrys on despite us knowing its a gas. Its also like philosophy still using a unicorn as a meta physical tool but we know how this was lost in translation and taken out of context etymology and defintion became fantasized lol
We have a very dangerous language model being taken out of context as is with computation and some evolutionary biologist habits of plagurizing words that confuse anti realism and realism as they graph words derived from humans for computers and graph physical mechanics to humans and this structuralism is taken out of context and lost in translation
my idea to unify gravity. explains the observations without needing to invent things or new discovery to proove they exist. just reassess what we already know as fact. abandon false belief.
Hello from Kazakhstan! You are familiar with Michelson's experiments. (1881) and its improvements for the discovery of gravitational waves (2015) - And that's only 50%. It is possible to continue this experience; Use "from the gyroscopes two non-circular spools of optical fiber." This device, which is located inside the car, measures: inertial speed in a straight line. (the device does not record the speed of the satellite or planet in orbit). I can share ideas for joint invention - Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part.
The intro needs serious work. Like who led you to think that was the right way to go? The demonically sensationalist thing isn't this audience. Even as a joke. It's a miscalculation.
@@gregoryallen0001 “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. The CAUSE of gravity. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. Read, then show it isn’t so. These great wits can’t even do a search- final theory- yet babble like ‘experts’. Laugh.
@@gregoryallen0001 That kind of comment can never be proven, and anyone who believes it must logically not look, thus counter to the scientific mind. In other words: The comment is Unprovable, demoralizing, unscientific, unproductive and almost certainly wrong.
It's definitely not real, there is only one reason to postulate it, to explain the exponential expansion rate of the universe. The expansion was discovered in 1929 and the exponential aspect was discovered in 1998. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way. Electricity comes into our homes because the neutral circuit provides the potential. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve 95% light speed in about 1 year. Physicists in the last century did not postulate dark energy because they understood that the expansion was a fundamental property of the universe. The fact that the expansion is increasing doesn't invalidate their reasoning. All studies to find dark energy have been fruitless because it doesn't exist.
So why does the universe expand? What is the mechanism? Is that not something that could be called "dark energy", the mechanism that powers the expansion? How can the universe expand without a mechanism to allow it to expand? That fact it has and is expanding shows that there must be a mechanism to explain it. "Dark energy" is the term for the mechanism that hasn't been explained yet, hence "dark" as in no information, something we haven't yet been able to "see". "The expansion of the universe is fundamental but the mechanism to make it expand doesn't exist" A slight contradictory statement.
@@JamesCairney Ofcourse there is an explanation, conclusion we need a paradigma shift and insight, not just calculation gods. Cause math is a tool, she is blind, so as long you dont have the right perspective to work from, all calculation means little. A good strong pointer for this are old chess computer progs, they calculate and yet lose from the modern AI chess computers. We there for need a paradigma shift, insight!
@@blijebij ok so you think there needs to be a "paradigm shift" on a subject that has no explanation? So the paradigm should shift from "dunno" to "still dunno"? Your point has no point.
@@JamesCairney No, i disagree, with a paradigma shift there would be an explanation as you see the universe then totally from a different perspective. you judge to fast. In a way you state, we are an objective witness, and how we interpretate things as well as how we imagine the Universe to work is correct, there for there is no reason for certain things. Everything always is linked to information&relation. That is the foundation of Existense, of Reality. In the middle ages there also seemed to be no explanation for things, Atom model of Dalton once looked as truth. Dont overvallue the knowledge of the moment you live at. Knowledge is always relative to some point.
@@blijebijyou just said in your previous post "we need a paradigm shift, insight" now you're saying we don't? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
It's coined dark and unseen because they can't find it or see it's detail, the trick is to find it then learn to see it's detail. It's been documented so it's been found so why is it kept from the public? Maybe because it's also called God's geometry of creation? Can it be divulged without persecution? Why has nobody come forward with the evidence of these geometric constructs ? 🌼🔥🕸️❄️👀
@@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546 I've checked out your programs thanks 👍. The Galaxy analysis I've heard over and over saying to myself yep that's because of dark matter/energy, I also wonder with everything being proprietary or classified if dark matter will become public knowledge. The closest representative I have seen is the Safire project "corpuscles sphere" except the geometry is incorrect. I would like more on Spinoza's within understanding I that would be interesting reading or the continuation of Euclid's unseen works of dark matter/energy'. ❗⭕. 🚬👀
