Sabine Hossenfelder: Is Dark Matter Real? 

Amen brother!

yep, that's how you learn physics

You’ve captured exactly how I feel!

Hossenfelder is not a genius. She is political. She is lying about physics. Here's the proof. THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

@@frankdimeglio8216 Love your narcissism. By Matúš Motlo.

"the biggest problems in cosmology". LOL, there aren't any problems in cosmology, not even little tiny ones.

If that was true why don´t we have a theory that explains the whole thing instead of just 4%.?

@@TheNguyenGiap Why don't you try?

@@TheStephaneAdam I am a bricklayer and though i use math in my daily i would never never be so obnoxious about the construct of the universe. Instead of giving me that moronic answer, you should rather spend your time and energy on asking the scientists why they are studying "dark matter" (another term for stuff we don´t know about) for 50 years they have not produced a single falsifiable experiment and they receive millions every year and dark matter is in the mainstream of science and therefore ok to study. (despite my previously stated facts) but ANY kind of advancement in the real understanding of the universe is not gonna happen with our attitude towards having a real conversation with nature(read the universe) if we think we already know all of it

@@TheNguyenGiap I'm not sure what exactly you are expecting. They have a gravitational model that seems to be precise for matter that we can observe but then when they observe the movement of galaxies in the wider universe, they observe behaviour that indicates that there seems to be a huge amount of unseen matter. "dark matter" is just a label for this mystery. You cannot by nature have a falsifiable experiment for such a nebulous concept, you can only have experiments that falsify particular dark matter hypothethical particles, which is what is happening. It's why certain candidates such as WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) are falling out of favour as certain experiments were conducted that were expected to produce evidence for them and failed to - exactly what you seem to want. Trying to paint it as scientists thinking they "already know all of it" is pretty disingenuous. It's precisely the fact that they do not know all of it that they are running these experiments in the first place! Maybe they're all wrong and matter or movement simply behaves differently at sufficiently large distances which is the opinion of MOND (Modified Newtonion dynamics) advocates but there are a number of observations and problems that throw doubt into this. There are also a number of potential experiments that can be done to test it.

@@yoshikhurazi1769 It's not "matter we can observe" per se. It's only the matter as yet observed. Far far too few people truly know the philosophy of science. We are inundated with technical savants who don't properly ask what it is they don't know.

There are many scientists, with the outside the box thinking

@@noodlerancid i think it's more about Sabine being grounded in actual science and avoid the disillusion of consensus or fringe, unsupported theories.

dr. Eric Lerner is better.

Whoa whoa, Germans do NOT go outside the box. The box is there for a reason!!!!! 😂😂 I love how utterly, stereotypically German Sabine is🥰

@@bobinmaine1 Scientists who think too far out of the box are considered pseudo-scientists because they tend to start being confirmation-biased. This is a bad thing. A good scientists never ever ignores significant and verified data, unless he has evidence/proof that that data may be incorrect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Our pleasure!

I see what you did there!

Dark matter and Grey matter are both ruled by the Electro-Magnetics of the Univers...in my honest opinion.

Same here!

I don't find Keating very impressive - in too much of a rush to win a Nobel prize than to check his results before publication.

@@emeraldeyes9565 OK..thanks for the reply..I wouldn't say that. He's only human, & he's learning from his mistakes.

They speak about Dark Matter as if is solidy a known fact but every attempt to prove it up until the current day in reality has been a major disappointment...

Sabine Hossenfelder's version isn't outside the mainstream. It is currently the minority viewpoint, but it would be a mistake to think that she's giving any encouragement to the many pseudoscientific claims of "alternate cosmologies" that are out there. She is still very much a supporter of mainstream science. This is just one of many normal debates that are going on within the scientific community all the time.

@8Truth Seeking Unable to unpack due to the wingnut operating the distribution system...LOL

Hossenfelder is political. She is maximum money making agenda "physics". She is extremely slick. It's OBVIOUSLY all about full spectrum CONTROL. She's political. They're in. They get PAID. You're out. You PAY. SHE'S LYING ABOUT PHYSICS. HERE IS THE CLEAR PROOF. THE THEORETICAL, TOP DOWN, CLEAR, SIMPLE, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA OF NECESSITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Very importantly, outer “space” involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. NOW, carefully consider what is THE SUN; AS it does (and it must) exist in both time AND SPACE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!!! Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!! (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!! ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !!! Carefully consider what is THE EYE. GREAT. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This CLEARLY explains the cosmological redshift AND the black hole(s) !!! AGAIN, gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!!! Think QUANTUM GRAVITY !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE !!!! Great. By Frank DiMeglio

@@n-da-bunka2650 Yeah, pure nonsense

Great point!

Relativity has already been overthrown. Gravitational lensing is just refraction. Light has never been shown to bend in plasma-free space.

@@DegreesOfThree _"Relativity has already been overthrown."_ Dumb comment. No, it hasn't. That would be headline news. Care to link us to the paper?

@@ianw_xvi8784 Links are automatically deleted, but the title of the relevant paper is, 'Gravitational Deflection of Light and Radio Waves Exhibit Impact Parameter Dependency from Solar Plasma Limb to Plasma-Free Space above' by Dr. Dowdye

@@DegreesOfThree _"but the title of the relevant paper is, 'Gravitational Deflection of Light and Radio Waves Exhibit Impact Parameter Dependency from Solar Plasma Limb to Plasma-Free Space above' by Dr. Dowdye"_ Is not a paper. It is a meeting abstract, and is complete nonsense. One only has to look at the sentence that says, "The light bending rule of General Relativity suggests that gravitational light bending effects should occur in a plasma-free space as well as in the empty plasma-free vacuum space far above the limb of the sun." to see how deluded this crank was. There is no such thing as plasma-free space.

@@DegreesOfThree 1. Refracted light is separated out by wavelength. Observed lensing is not. 2. Gravitational lensing is observed where foreground galaxy clusters distort the light of background galaxies into arcs appearing to surround the cluster. GR predicts and accurately models this. 99.999999999999999999999999 percent of the light from the background galaxy has passed through......wait for it....... oh, empty space, duh. 3. The 0.00000000000000001 percent interacting with any type of plasma would scatter in all directions (assuming plasma actually refracts light in this manner., I really don't know and kind of doubt it), and any reaching earth would appear to come from the plasma itself, not from arcs surrounding the cluster. 4. So your refraction idea would need a magical, narrow ring of plasma, billions of lights years around, encircling galaxy clusters, and oriented to Earth in a manner to reproduce the predictions of GR and trick all the earthlings billions of light years away. Oh, and it has to refract all wavelengths of light the same amount AND somehow not scatter any light away. Pseudoscience and other forms of misinformation are ever more difficult to cut through, and ever more dangerous. Seek truth, even if it's boring and mundane!

Agree, just finished her new book, Existential Physics, nice to read

Glad it was helpful!

@ Why is there a US and UK flag icon on the title page? What is that signifying?

@@thenatureofnurture6336 It's the language of the audio track. We also have Spanish versions with the Spanish flag on the thumbnail for easy identification.

@ Oh, wow. You got a translation dubbed into Spanish? Not just subtitles - very cool.

@ UNDERSTANDING TIME (AND TIME DILATION) PURSUANT TO THE BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA (OF NECESSITY): Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma IN BALANCE !!! This explains the fourth dimension AND the term c4 (from Einstein's field equations). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. So, it makes perfect sense that the planets will move away from WHAT IS THE SUN very, very, very SLIGHTLY. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma IN BALANCE.) Carefully consider what is the speed of light (c). A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground AND what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! The sky is BLUE, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. THE EARTH is a BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to the speed of light (c) AND what is THE SUN (AS what is a linked AND BALANCED opposite) pursuant to the universal (and CLEAR) fact that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS clearly proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground !!! Great. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, objects (AND WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity is clearly ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma IN BALANCE !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 is clearly F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE !!! (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.) I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! By Frank DiMeglio

@israel socratus ON THE ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY RELATION OF E=MC2 AS F=MA (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is clearly gravity AS WHAT IS NECESSARILY POSSIBLE/POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL IN BALANCE: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. ACCORDINGLY, the Moon AND THE PLANETS move AWAY very, very, very slightly in comparison to WHAT IS THE SUN !! SO, carefully consider what is THE EYE !! Finally, think about what is the speed of light (c). E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ! Magnificent. It ALL does CLEARLY make perfect sense ON BALANCE !!! This does explain the fourth dimension, including the term c4 therewith !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ! Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. So, notice that what is THE MOON is basically dead or inert ON BALANCE !!! GREAT. INDEED, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! The sky is BLUE, AND what is THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE !! (Notice what is THE EYE !!) ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! Great. Carefully consider what is the Sun. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Consider what is BALANCED observer dependent/related experience ! Carefully consider the man (INCLUDING what is THE EYE) who actually IS in outer "space". NOW, think about TIME; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. INSTANTANEITY is therefore FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. So, here we have established what can basically and sensibly be understood as constituting a one dimensional relation. A white dwarf star is about the size of the Earth, AND it is ALSO (ON BALANCE) the PROJECTED form or fate (IN TIME) of the Sun !!! Great !!! Stellar clustering ALSO proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Against what is outer "space", why would the Sun maintain what is its "preferential" existence ? The answer is THE EYE/the observer. INDEED, notice that THE EYE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ! Now, ON BALANCE, consider what is the speed of light (c). A galaxy is basically FLAT. SO, think about a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE (ON BALANCE) as well. HALF of the galaxies are "dead" or inert, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma !! Carefully consider what is THE EYE !! TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Great. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM energy. Excellent !!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Consider WHAT IS THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Think about TIME !!! NOW, the stars AND PLANETS do REMAIN AS what are POINTS in the night sky. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. This explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes". Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The fact that the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution is not a meaningless coincidence, AS the fact that both the Sun AND the Moon are the SAME SIZE in the sky is not some sort of a meaningless coincidence. Notice the match with the size of what is THE EYE. Magnificent !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE, AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Great !!! Carefully consider what are the POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE !!! Think about the necessity (or essential nature) of TIME, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma ON BALANCE !!! Great. It is proven. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) Consider what is THE SUN AND what is THE EARTH/ground in DIRECT comparison, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!! GREAT !!! E=MC2 IS F=ma !!!! By Frank DiMeglio

Because the electric universe is stupid pseudoscience. Don´t expect Prof. Hossenfelder to waste her time with nonsense.

Because then dark matter wouldn't be "dark" since any particle with an electric charge would obviously interact with electromagnetism. Any particle that has an electric charge will interact with light of some wavelength and is thus in principle detectable through telescopes so it wouldn't be dark matter.

@@stoferb876 @who said anything about dark matter. So if the universe had a primarily negative charge of a positive charge how would it be detected? The charge would be mainly in the galaxies. The electromagnetic force would extend thru out.

@UCi1JJC-IByge-eLQQMg7vhw I don´t understand your first sentence. Your second is irony?

@@norbertjendruschj9121 who is @UCi1JJC-IByge-eLQQMg7vhw? For a moment I thought you were addressing me.

Very welcome

That is one of the effects physicists are looking for.

You are right. In a cloud of stars, the inner ones are pulled outside by the outer stars. It is a similar effect like near the center of earth there is no gravity at all. Interesting, that astronomers don´t like it to know that and instead invent something weird like dark matter.

Interesting! What would you expect from the vortices?

@ I would expect that the presence of phonons in a superfluid would change the interaction between the vortices. In other words, introduction of phonons would model, or so I hope, that long-range force, which Dr. Hossenfelder referred to, in the medium that has other interacting objects (vortices). At least it may be considered as the first approximation to the problem, discussed in this presentation. IMHO :) Cheers!

@@sergeyyatskevitch3617 Your opinion: "Virtual Reality" which does not actually exist but is so super convincing: The ouch is reality theory absent any medium of transport not unlike UV Catastrophe theory but where does the 'hardness' tensor come from??

Sabine rubs you? Perhaps only in passing.

I wish haha

But it still fails at large scales, just like MOND. Until somebody can come up with an alternative that explains DM at both small (galaxy) and large (clusters, colliding clusters) scales, DM is still the only game in town.

@@ianw_xvi8784 I think you missed the point of Sabine's proposition. At large distances, her dark matter is supposed to behave like WIMPs. Only within galaxies it superfluid and exerts a MOND-like force on barionic matter.

@@arctic_haze Except that observation shows that not to be true, eh?

@@ianw_xvi8784 In my opinion rather the other way. The model fits well observation but it is not clear what is its physics. Namely is such a substance physically possible at all.

@@arctic_haze It looks like retrospective curve-fitting to me. As if someone has said, "well MOND is quite good at the galaxy level, but fails at large scales. DM explains the large scales well. So, why not have something that acts differently at different scales?" Sorry, that looks like a weak hypothesis to me. And still does not explain a lot of observations. Have a look at 'The Dirtiest Fight in Physics Is About the Universe Itself', on Gizmodo, and the link therein to Ethan Siegel's blog. The plain fact of the matter is that these models fail at large scales. And until they can explain that without tweak theories requiring one sort of interaction in galaxies, and another at large scale, DM will continue to be light years ahead of the alternatives.

Fermions would like to have a word with you

@@uninspired3583 When fermions annihilate, out comes light.

If you like this topic, check out the other recorded (here on this channel) and upcoming Golden Webinars, where you can actively participate: astro.uc.cl/en/item-3-menu-izquierdo-2/573-golden-webinars-in-astrophysics-now-on-youtube

@israel socratus Sure, Jan.

They "cancel" the galaxy out of the CMB using adaptive signal processing, but it is not remotely possible to do this using any known cancellation theory. IF you look at the Hubble Ultra Deep field images, you can see hundreds of thousands of galaxies in a single pixel of Planck's "CMBR" which gives you an idea of what they're actually measuring, and only when they get away from our galactic plane.

_"Since the launch of the Hubble telescope, our understanding of the star content of the galaxy raised by a thousandfold."_ No, it hasn't.

We don’t calculate mass by counting visibly identifiable stars.

"Perhaps" is not a scientific argument. ;-)

.@@schmetterling4477 True, and that's about all we got with dark matter now, isn't it?. All this dark matter conjecture and controversy shows me is that our current suppositions about galactic mechanics are unlikely be correct. My guess is the when we get the model right and the curves will make perfect sense

@@howardtieckelmann9934 What we got with dark matter is almost a century of observations that even an amateur with a decent telescope can repeat from his back yard.

Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. ;-)

Glad you enjoyed it.

There plenty of Golden Webinars coming up where you can participate: astro.uc.cl/en/item-3-menu-izquierdo-2/573-golden-webinars-in-astrophysics-now-on-youtube

_"Kroupa asked really good questions about CMBR assumption "_ Nope, he asked a really dumb question. Dust? Lol.

@@ianw_xvi8784 It is not dumb. If you know of the Hubble Deep Field images (and ultra deep field) you can count up the galaxies that are blazing into one single pixel of the most resolved CMBR measurements (like from Planck). The visible galaxies alone are in the thousands (within one CMBR pixel), and they have plenty of dust, active emissions, and many other things that span the microwaves.

@@onehitpick9758 No, it is dumb. Which is why nobody is making such claims. You cannot get a near perfect blackbody spectrum from starlight. Which is what galaxies are. It is a really dumb claim.

@@ianw_xvi8784 Actually, you can get a blackbody spectrum from starlight. Stars, themselves approximate blackbodies except for distinct lines, and when you mix trillions of them at different redshifts, you get a blackbody spectrum. What you can't do is cancel the Milky Way and claim to see the tiny background, and worse, the fluctuations behind it. People who believe this are mislead. Also, what you can't do is look at an angular region of space, break it up into pixels, and claim you are making a background measurement when one of your pixels contains hundreds of thousands of uncatalogued, uncancelled galaxies (and many more that we can't see with things like Hubble). And the idea that it is a "perfect" blackbody spectrum failed around 2008. There are deviations as instrumentation got better than COBE, and proposed reasons for the observed deviations.

@@onehitpick9758 _"Actually, you can get a blackbody spectrum from starlight. Stars, themselves approximate blackbodies except for distinct lines"_ Nope, not even close. To quote Edward L. (Ned) Wright from his website back in 1997; "Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight? NO! The CMB radiation is such a perfect fit to a blackbody that it cannot be made by stars. The reason for this is that stars are at best only pretty good blackbodies, and the usual absorption lines and band edges make them pretty bad blackbodies. In order for a star to radiate it must have a temperature gradient in its outer regions, as shown below: (you'll have to look at the website to see the images) Because of this temperature gradient, the light we see is a mixture of radiation from the hotter lower levels (blue) and the cooler outer levels (red). When blackbodies with these temperatures are mixed, the resulting purple curve is close to but not exactly equal to the blackbody curve (black). Of course a real star has lines as shown by the G2V (solar-like) star spectrum in green. So the purple curve is already an idealized star in which the absorption of radiation is independent of the frequency. In order to show how badly this purple curve fits the FIRAS observations of the CMB spectrum, the graph below plots just the difference between the purple curve and the blackbody, along with the FIRAS data points. The errorbars have been multiplied by 20 so they will be visible, and the purple curve misses these enlarged errorbars by a large factor. In fact, the purple curve can by very well approximated by a kind of distorted spectrum known as a Kompaneets or Sunyaev-Zel'dovich distortion with a parameter y = 0.0062. The actual fitted value for y from the FIRAS data is y = -0.000001 +/- 0.000006, so even an idealized star with no absorption lines is 1000 times too "non-black" to fit the CMB observations. One can easily have stars visible from different redshifts which will smooth out the absorption lines, but these stars will appear as different temperature blackbodies and it is the mixing of different apparent temperatures that causes the deviation of the purple curve. Hence more mixing will make things worse. The gray dashed curve on the plot shows how much the fit can be improved by adjusting the emissivity or sky coverage of the stars. Normally the emissivity is 1-R where R is the reflectance, and thus the emissivity usually has to be less than 1. But the best fit emissivity is 1.09. So this would be unphysical unless the redshift is caused by tired light. In this case the apparent emissivity is (1+z)3 >> 1, and one can lower this down to an apparent emissivity of 1.09 by only partly covering the sky with stars. This requires some fine tuning, since for a typical stellar temperature of 4000 K a redshift of 1+z = 1466 is needed which gives an apparent emissivity of 3,150,662,696 that needs to be canceled by a sky coverage of 0.00000000034511 in this model. But the errors in the CMB fit are still 300 times larger than the FIRAS data allow, so this model can also be ruled out. How does the Big Bang produce a nearly perfect blackbody CMB? In the Big Bang model there are no temperature gradients because the Universe is homogeneous. While the temperature varies with time, this variation is exactly canceled by the redshift so the apparent temperature of radiation from redshift z is given by T(z)/(1+z) which is equal to the CMB temperature To for all redshifts which contribute to the CMB." So no, it cannot be from starlight. That is a particularly silly thing to claim. Which is likely why nobody has ever replied to CMB papers with such a claim in the peer-reviewed literature. You'll need to Google 'Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight? NO!', to see the webpage.

You are confused. ;-)

Definitely not a cult

I'd bet you any money you like that every physicist on that panel knows far more than you do about electricity and plasma physics than you do. Even the grad students would embarrass you within the first five minutes.

Welcome to first class. Remember to pull the curtain behind you.

What the hell have 'electricity and magnetism' got to do with DM observations, rotation curves, etc? Are you sure that you aren't one of the Velikovskian cultists of electric universe? They don't have any science, nor any scientists.

@@ianw_xvi8784 I’ll take being a cultist as a compliment…kind of like those that saw how the heliocentric solar system simplified the physics of the geocentric solar system! Dark Matter science will go the way of the dodo bird…just like all there experiments…all failures!

@@sibeguy You mean 'their' experiments? And how long did it take to detect neutrinos? And then the other flavours of neutrinos? And the Higgs boson? And time dilation? And gravitational redshift? And gravitational waves? And black holes? I could go on. DM is strongly inferred from observation. No other alternative hypothesis comes close to explaining it. And the Velikovskian cultists you follow certainly can't even begin to try. They don't have any scientists! So, why don't you do the calculations for how magnetism can explain galaxy rotation curves? Hint: it has already been calculated. It is impossible. Give it a try though. It could be instructive for you. Further hint: you'll need to know the charge on a star. Assume zero, because that is pretty much what it has to be.