World Science Festival Mathematics is the only translation I know of, oh wait u can't translate math

Dark Gravity- Our hypothesis that dark matter is just distortions in spactime by which the curvature alone is the cause of the gravity. Spactime has been observed to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating waves. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and recently gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation losing elasticity. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that spacetime’s elastic nature hit its yield point and deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the direct result of warped spactime, and fabrics can be deformed, then a deformation of spacetime could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Dark matter may simply be a particle of the spacetime’s structure, instead an exotic particle sitting in spacetime causing the warped geodesics.

World Science Festival I have solved unification.

World Science Festival - Well, if the matter is dark, simply shine a light on it. Problem solved. Much more difficult it would be if the matter were invisible like our Alberich.

Jason G. _ Gravitational waves? Interesting. All waves can be polarized. So, what is the best way to polarize your gravitational waves?

Or actually learn something about that which you're watching people argue over.

Civilized people call it Modified Gravity.

Electromagnetism, electric currents in interstellar space plasma, and Maxwell's equations explain all observed phenomena of galactic rotation: no dark matter is needed. The Universe is electric.

@@StSol-nq8gz Wow! Put this enlightened chump on that panel of experts! Electric universe? Get fucking real.

@@BookOnThrough Your blinders must really hurt. Why don't you set up your own low density plasma lab, apply some voltage across the chamber filled with plasma, and see with your own eyes how little rotating galaxies are formed by electric currents. Seeing is believing. It is high time to finally abandon Einsteinian metaphysics and reexamine the foundational assumptions about the Universe.

Awesome!

Interesting, keep us all posted on your progress or even brainstorming...contributions

A pathetic display of people interrupting each other

DRSulik why birkland currents 🤔

Yes, they have

Good point. Alternative dimensional gravity never occurred to me

innerlocus yes. If you research into this you will find that extra-universal force being exerted on our universe (in the form of gravity or anything really) is a theory - though not a testable one. We can not test something outside our universe acting on ours. Gravitational wave science holds promise. Top physics admit in debates exactly like this one, that it may be we can never understand dark matter or energy. It's just a name we give to a force we don't understand. It is likely, they think, that we could be looking at an extra directional structure of the universe one that we as 3D beings, can not see. For example, if you were a 2d being living on a piece of paper, and I took a pencil and pushed down on your 2d paper surface. That force would cause it to warp. However, living on a piece of 2d paper you can only see front back up down. You can not possibly turn to your right to see me pushing on your world with a pencil (because the extra direction simply does not exist to you being a stick figure on a piece of paper). At most you could see a little dot - the pencil point touching the paper as it contacts your 2d plane. But seeing that little point you would not understand how it is warping your paper (space) so much. Do some research and try to visualize or understand a 4th direction that you could move your own arm into. Up down left right back forth... You simply can not even conceive any other way to move your arm. Stuck in your 3D world. Or 2d or 1d. There may be 11d. Meaning 11 directions of movement. Something in one of these higher d could be interacting with our directional plane but we could never see or understand or conceive it. This theory makes clear why It's no wonder we can not see "dark energy or dark matter" ... It is tied in with string theory and multiverse of course.

Alternative dimensional gravity NEVER occurred!

Electricity is the only Force there is no gravity

Yeah but we are stuck since more than 10 years. Hearing the same things over and over again.

"we have been stuck for..."

What do you mean, this was awful, the only time ive ever had to turn one off...

Not really. This panel was the 'B' team.

At least some of them were open minded on the whole Dark Matter existence. I wish people would stop siting CMB measurements as of proof of anything until we have measured and cancelled every last galaxy before the CMB. Until then, the CMB measurements are just low resolution imaging of the remote galaxies, and not what's behind them. We know that because the further we are able to look, we just see more an more galaxies at increased angular density.

indeed

Your computer simulation would need to be as big as the universe, and there would be no way to 'speed it up'. Also, not a paradox, since you haven't shown a contradiction.

I know the answer but I shall not tell

Ms Zwicky is quite correct that Fritz Zwicky was the first astronomer to discover the 'effects' due to 'dark matter'. Here it is about 84 years later and we don't know one bit more about 'dark matter' than did Prof Zwicky. Personally I find it ludicrous that something like 96 % of the matter in the universe is hidden from us and think it is much more likely that we will have to adapt our theories of gravity to understand its behaviour on the largest cosmic scales.

You know they weren't going to let Einstein into the little club either. Its a old story. Zwickys ideas were inspiring.

As Fritz said-Spherical bastards!

They're too woke. They want to act like women have discovered everything in this day and age. As if men aren't even required. Feminism isn't a good thing, they aren't seeking equality, they're seeking control.

I'm sorry but I wouldn't say Zwicky discovered dark matter. His estimations were too off the mark to warrant any merit to the conclusion that there was some mass "missing". To his merit, he was just ahead of its time, technologically speaking. His estimation that there was 400x mass-to-light ration was orders of magnitude off the mark. That is because we just didn't have enough data and good enough telescopes to get good approximations for distances. But also, because he made assumptions (like assuming most stars were similar to the sun) that were just wrong, as we would discover later. There was good reason not to accept his conclusion. In science you don't get credit for getting to the right answer by mistake. If so, the credit wouldn't go for Zwicky either, it would go to Jacobus Kapteyn. I do think he deserves the credit for being a pioneer in the area, as he does. Rubin's work offered much stronger evidence. Not only that, it stood the test of time, since the fact (stars at the edge of the galaxy have speeds way higher than they should if most of the mass was near the center, where the light was). That being said, I don't think she discovered it either. She presented strong evidence that caught the attention of the astrophysicist community. It took a lot more evidence for the conclusion to be justifiably accepted by the majority of physicists. Things like BAO and gravitational lensing. And it is still controversial, as we can see here.

I’m pretty sure the black holes are accounted for. They can calculate its mass by studying the orbits of the stars that go around it.

He did, about a year after this the 'me too' movement ended this guys career. Writer Suki Kim wrote an article about him accusing him of bullying and sexual harassment in the work place and old John here had to wheel himself off to exile. I didnt read the article, he may have been rightfully vilified I dont know, but I know that the 'me too' movement destroyed a lot of innocent men because any person accused of anything was guily until proven innocent and immediately vilified. Innocent people suddenly found themselves in ruins because of some claim made by a woman either out of malice or madness. For that reason it was very harmful at times and became a tyrant and bully itself at times also.

lol yes!

If it was doggy knee shed probably hide it ... noticed that straight away though 😂😂

Why not both!

I hear you

Yeah, I agree. Right from the start, I got the idea I was on the wrong channel... Comedy Central, maybe, with standard stand-up comedian stuff. John Hockenberry's initial approach is out-of-place, at best.

nice rings harry 👍

Thanxz

I believe he was just trying to politely express that there is a fundamental difference in what each of them believe the nature of the "dark matter" is without getting into an argument.

no

Diamond. Too many commas.

And then the camera pans out far beyond the Universe and we see a tiny stooped old man with grey hair and wearing a white lab coat, whistling as he tends to his burner under the large pot. He sang to himself while stirring the brew and adding more drops from a little blue bottle in rhythm with "One little, two little, three little Universes, four little five little, six little Universes . . ."

depends on how many shots your adding :) , no WIMPS here after a few

I like this comment. The properties of gravity are still not fully known or understood

The LHC is not powerful enough to detect the best candidates anyway

Dark Matter = Black holes, Dark Energy = Gravity, G'Force = Extra Mass

yeah he does. Just roll with it

Actually, there's something theorized to exist called "Dark Energy" as well as "Dark Matter". The title of this video is "Dark Universe", so, that means both Dark Matter & Dark Energy might be subjects in this discussion. Both are theoretical, neither are proven to exist. Dark Matter is subsumed to explain the (otherwise) inexplicably-fast rotations of many galaxies (which rotate once every several million years); and Dark Energy is subsumed to explain the (otherwise) inexplicable acceleration in the expansion of the (observable) Universe, which was discovered quite by accident (10 or 20 years ago). Regarding Dark Energy :: There were two (academic?) teams trying to measure the *deceleration* of the Universe's expansion. After 2 years of work, each team was flummoxed-&-mystified by their preliminary conclusions/findings that the expansion of the Universe was (apparently) *accelerating*. Each team thought there must be a horrible compounding of significant mistakes in various places: in the equipment, methodology, human error, pranks, and who-knows-what-else. The accidental discovery of Dark Energy started with idea that we could measure the (assumed) slow-down of the Universe's expansion, and hen calculate whether the Universe would expand forever, or eventually contract. The methodology was simply to measure the rate at which each of a couple thousand galaxies (at various distances) were receding from Earth. And then take the same measurements one-year later, and hope to find the "slow-down" in the expansion of the Universe was not only measurable, but led to concrete conclusions .... [Far galaxies are "known" to receding from Earth faster than near galaxies" thanks to Edwin Hubble -- see last paragraph.] Both teams *implicitly assumed* that gravity (throughout the Universe) would surely *slow* the expansion, year by year. Much like when you throw a ball above your head, it "recedes" from you fast in the beginning ... but recedes from you slowly after a few seconds, as the ball gets higher. The two teams were racing to be the first to announce whether the Universe would "Expand Forever" (but expanding less-and-less with each ensuing year) (much as if the aforementioned ball had been given "escape-velocity" from the Earth), or the Universe would eventually "Cease Expanding" due to gravity, and then reverse direction, and come crashing back together billions of years in the future., like the Big Bang in reverse. [Far galaxies are receding from Earth faster than near galaxies: In the early 1900's, Edwin Hubble, discovered the "general rule" that if Galaxy-B was twice as far away (from Earth) as Galaxy-A, then Galaxy-B was receding (from Earth) at roughly twice the speed. This is what happens when a hand-grenade explodes: some shrapnel gets thrown faster than other shrapnel, and if Shrapnel-B is moving twice as fast Shrapnel-A, it will always be about twice as far from the point-of-explosion than Shrapnel-A. Hubble's astounding discovery prompted one "non-believer" to poke fun at the implication that there must have been a really big bang. The name stuck. That's why we refer to the beginning of the Universe as the "Big-Bang", even today. The discovery of the expansion of the Universe also caused Albert Einstein to say that his biggest blunder was the "cosmological constant" which he inserted in his equations (I don't know where) to make his equations agree with a "Static Universe" which was accepted as "fact" prior to Edwin Hubble's astounding discovery of the expansion, and the "general rule" which quickly led to "Hubble's Constant".] Finally, i'd like to say that "Dark Energy" is mis-nomered. What was discovered was not actually energy, nor a source of energy. What was "discovered" is a mysterious force, that seems to work in opposite manner as gravity ... and gravity is a force ... So, why didn't they call it the Dark Force? Well, that nomenclature was already widely-known as an imaginary force in the famous movie, Star Wars. The "Force" was good, and the "Dark Force" was evil.

@@neilanderson891 Yes, and as I believe Dark Matter and Dark Energy stem from the same String, in Particle/Wave Duality. ☕️

@@michaelcastillo6828 I guess "the same String" is your reference to "String Theory" which I'm not qualified to to even question, but I'll ask anyway: "Can you explain that in layman's terms?" The reason I ask is because "Dark Matter" is theorized as the source of unexpected gravity, and "Dark Energy" is the theorized source of a force (apparently evidenced in the outer reaches of space, yet possibly also existing within our own solar system, as well as possibly existing between the molecules that comprise the cells of our own human bodies) that is, basically, an "anti-gravity" because it is replusive, rather than attractive (like "regular" gravity). (In my opinion, this theorized anti-gravity force would've and should've been labeled as "the Dark Force", but that terminology was already coined in the blockbuster movie, Star Wars (circa 1977 or so), which continues to have sequels today (well, say, 2016 or 2017, and possibly 2020?). My own "pet theory" is that Dark Matter may not exist at all, but is due to a simple yet common mistake no one has caught yet (except me, which automatically makes it highly unlikely because I'm no genius, but I've got a line of reasoning to investigate anyway) and Dark Energy might not exist at all because the presumption that space is flat is mistaken, which means the Universe must be a lot larger than supposed. That's a bit harder ... not sure how to credibly challenge the prevailing presumption of a flat Universe ... which means there room to consider the possiblity that the Universe is positively-curved, or both positively- and negatively curved in different regions. I'm really out on a limb, but its a hobby I can afford.

I meant to say "repulsive" (not replusive" in the 4th line

Just depends on how you create torque on plasma.

Which essentially means light is N and S spin on same directional axis.

No

Sudipta Maity you mean like priest vs pope?

yes it is as you go up from yellow to oraange it becomes less dense and it becomes less dance than orange if you go to red, now if you go down from yellow it becomes more dense till you get to white tha is the haviests of all the colors. Check out ALTON HARP INTRINSIC RED SHIEFT here he says that the visible universe counts with 7 steps in wave lenghth so the rainbow

No kidding. Their explanations are flat out stupid and they even admit that they don't even know what they are talking about. But what they REALLY want is gubment grant money for LIGO, Brookhaven, CERN and all the other boondoggles. But at least Lisa Randall is nice to look at.

Phoenix Franks they found evidence of the gravity by other means (lensing effects), that's why they stick with it.

Steven Schrader "They have "found" no such evidence. There is no such thing as "gravitational lensing."" Yeah, let's ignore the evidence then we have no evidence... good start right there. Gravitational lensing is expected by physics since the 1930s and Einstein posited an experiment by simple observation of the sun. The rest of your rant is baffling since you are typing it into a computer but believe physics have it wrong... small hint: All of modern technology is directly or indirectly derived from those wackjob ideas about Muons, Gluons etc.

Like I said, If you want to "believe", then "believe." It's hilarious that there are so many who fall for all the theoretical stuff as if it is fact. But the truth is there is no gravitational lensing. No dark matter. No dark energy. I even saw something one day where one moron that called himself a professor theorized "dark galaxies." And then we have the whole other matter of those who want so badly to believe in all the theoretical nonsense. Then when someone like me points out the nonsense, then I'm attacked. Of course, by now I just expect that from the morons. The comment about technology is flat stupid. Again. Something I expect from the morons of epic proportions. Technology has nothing to do with physics. You people who want to believe in nonsense are welcome to it. What do I care? But answer one little thing. How do you propose that "gravitons" perform the function of PULL? How does a discrete particle pull on another particle?

The truth is you believe BS so you ignore non-BS. Congrats. See you ,.. or better not... You win by losing. Quite an achievement.

I think there is a link. Look at a theory named "twin universe". But it was never truly tested and forgotten... Makes such sense now.

Any anti matter would cause a chain reaction explosion, I've heard that before. It has to be consciousness! The ever expanding universe is more and more thoughts. Thoth (the wisdom keeper) from Egypt, also Hermes the thrice born said it starts with thought. Before anything there is a thought. So dark matter is consciousness that also exists on our 3D plane and dark energy is an even higher level of 6d to 12d consciousness we’ve yet to explain however ancient scripts from around the world speak of these dimensions. They exist like there are 12 notes in music. Just like music has octaves so does each dimension. That leaves a lot of space that could be explained. Pythagoras’s principles came from Thoth. Tesla and Einstein both quoted about vibrations being the key to everything and all the higher consciousness practices are all about vibrating and controlling your own frequency. So your soul, my soul, all of our souls make it all possible. Without consciousness there is nothing to conceive. Think about telepathy. It can’t be seen or touched but it’s there, in theory. Think about dreams, evidence consciousness is beyond our understanding. The afterlife, reincarnation, ascension stories from as far back as written history goes. Evidence our souls are immortal and everlasting thus so is consciousness and always has been in our universe in some way or form. Most forbidden history states that not ascending to the next dimension is rare for species and descending is rarer. So that could explain the dark energy expanding faster and faster as over time more and more species consciousness ascend higher over time. It’s a theory at least but I’d say a good one.

Chris Black, telescopes usually.

mdiem I understand the colors of stars determine there relations of distance but how can they really know the relations of distance between each other?