Jeredin

2019 video but the applications for entanglement is so wide open for exploration.

Feels like a shower thought, but I seriously want to know if there are any implications, because it seems like identical twins are able to sense, understand, and almost be extensions of each other - finish each other's sentences/thoughts. Some even claim to be able to sense their twin when they're separate. Hard to believe, but at all possible?

From the article: "In detail, Hoʻoleilana is slightly larger than anticipated from the theory of the standard model of cosmology, and what has been found from prior statistical pair-wise studies of galaxy separations. The size is in accord with observations of the local expansion rate of the universe and of galaxy flows on large scales that also hint at subtle problems with the standard model."

My recent post about reexamining the standard cosmological model and thus, Dark Energy.

(A great video introduction to Subir Sarkar's findings as well a recent related article down below)

For a few months I've been studying MOND and those best propagating it's paradigm. While studying I regularly came across references to Dark Energy and always had an intuitive discomfort with it. So I took a break from MOND and dove deeper into Dark Energy, hoping to enlighten myself better on it. It wasn't long until I came across Professor Subir Sarkar's work and it's implications on Dark Energy. While the video and links I've posted sheds light how modified the Standard Model of Cosmology is (refer to links), Sarkar's work also perfectly highlighted (I think coincidentally) Dark Matter's taint in the Standard Lambda-CDM model. To be clear, Sarkar has hypothesized and done papers narrowing down/out some forms of DM, but he is a self-proclaimed phonologist and ultimately seems agnostic about which gravity model (MOND or some form of DM) will stand the test of time, only that the model makes good predictions and best fits observable data. But I personally find it interesting that both the "Darks" are tainting the other's model and if you remove both of them, MOND has one less issue to answer for, while cosmology simply goes back to improving observations (locally and beyond) and eventually answer our cosmological constant (flat, positive, negative). With improved modeling of our galaxy filaments, we should discover the answer - if not be much closer to it.

• Is the Universe Accelerating? | Subir Sarkar (video)
• Lopsided' Universe could mean revision of standard cosmological model (article)

Edit: wording - Edit 2: clarification about Sarkar

A great video to quickly bring you up-to-date if you're following the ΛCDM vs MOND science and debates.

Some MOND proponents I've researched so far.

There's a good many gravity theories, some that don't even try to explain the why, only the how and other's that involve some particle like the graviton. But anyone know if there's any based on the energetic vibrations of our known particles with mass (those within protons and neutrons)? In other words, gravity's space warp is a result of all the heavy work done by powerful particles; the more mass at work (density), the more space warps.

I found this one, and I recall someone trying to do a current version of it but can't seem to locate it (perhaps being developed outside of English language).

Thanks for any insight.

(To be clear, I'm more interested in the reach and scaling of gravity.)

If we were to suddenly double earth's mass, but not it's size, would it's field double in size (I assume strength as well), to the extent that if I were to measure this increased gravity at the same place I measured earth's normal gravity, it would simply be double? If so, the least measurable point of both gravitates should also be the same?

Just wondering if there's diminishing returns or if mass and density affects a gravity field the same regardless of whether it's an asteroid or a billion Solar Masses.

Feel free to share any views I'm not taking into account in regards to gravity fields.

Thanks

I've been doing a bit of searching for theories on the origin of baryon matter (including antimatter of course) and some seem to hint at quantum particles spawning from the fabric of space (but doesn't seem to theorize on how this happened) but not many focus on hypothesizing how all forms of baryon matter ether: was the default starting point (that is empty space wasn't the default origin, energy was) or that the fabric of space is the origin of baryon matter (something like: space has the blue print and energy supplies the material).

Thanks for any insight/links that focus on this question

I'm studying how the universe's filaments are connected and evolve. It seems electromagnetism has a very interesting nature through gas/particles that exist between galaxies.

While there is still much to learn about gravity, these last couple of years has shown me cosmology and astrophysics needs to examine magnetism's large scale relationship within our universe far more closely.

I've read that at the center of large celestial bodies there's zero gravity (or close to). While confirmation would be nice, if true, I'm wondering how large that area can actually be and moreover, does it scale up with more mass and/or even size - that is, does the sun have a larger center area of low (zero?) gravity than the earth and so on with evermore mass. Or is that area the same regardless of mass' size?

Thank you

As a part of my growing series researching MOND and the professionals propagating their research with and around it, I'd like to introduce Prof. Stacy McGaugh - down below are associated links to him, his work both in ΛCDM and MOND.

Note: the profile and descriptions posted here (not linked) are made by me, not him - links to his research and lectures down below.

• Most cosmologists/astrophysicists study apposing theories for various reasons but Stacy was very invested in ΛCDM in his early career. But as observational research went forth in the field he found the ΛCDM predictions difficult to fit and needed evermore fine tuning, while the MOND hypothesis fit much of the observed data right out of the gate. While Stacy admits that MOND can't account for all observable data, yet, MOND's research funding is drops in a bucket compared to ΛCDM. I invite you to be pragmatic and open minded about MOND, and reflect about how much fine-tuning is necessary for Dark Matter to fit data.

Links:

• Prof Stacy MCGaugh works at Case Western Reserve University.
• His own personal website. Has so many great links, including The MOND pages, a personal website focused on MOND research, lectures, debates, as well as Dark Matter (which again, he's worked on professionally).
• A long-winded lecture that you can watch entirely for greater context, but I'll link to Stacy's portion about MOND's early development, it's predictions and the following successes and challenges: Stacy McGaugh (CWRU Astronomy) Patterns on the Sky: Galaxy Dynamics Edition
• KITP Conference 2018 - Lecture and Debate MOND vs. Dark Matter - Stacy McGaugh & Carlos Frenk. Carlos Frenk's side of the debate is linked below the video but I found it difficult to play as he has his linked at his own website - it may play for you.

My Previous posts For MOND:

• Prof Dr Pavel Kroupa

I really, really feel more people who are scientifically pragmatic and follow Cosmology need to learn about Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa and his views/research on Dark Matter and current research on MOND; including his own variant of it.

If you'd like to learn more about Pavel or MOND:

• The dark matter myth | Pavel Kroupa full interview This is a great introduction, especially if you prefer video/audio.

• A Blog he's very involved in: The Dark Matter Crisis If you take the dive, I highly recommend starting with 82. Galaxy clusters: no problem for MOND after all?

• Here's a lot of ADS research papers he's worked on.

Wiki for MOND is a little messy but I found had some good links to better information if you want to do further research in relation to MOND.

Additions to my MOND research series on Space@beehaw.org:

• Prof Stacy McGaugh