Can you mathematicians and scientists tell me if this guys "fluid space" theory checks out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGppuBGhJX8

I've always felt there was something fishy with dark matter, and I want to believe this guy but his presentation skills are poor and he shills his book all the time. But then I think maybe he is just min-maxing (max INT and min CHA), and I don't have the INT to tell if he is a pseud or not.

Also, other alternative to dark matter theories are welcome in this thread.

>>16707230 (OP)
Just looking at your image I can tell he's a retarded fraud

>>16707235
Scientists publish their work in journals, not do youtube shows and sell books. For all we know this is OP.

>>16707235
Yeah I was hoping for some debunking of the source material. Stephen Hawking looked retarded and was literally physically retarded, but he said some stuff worth listening to.

>>16707236
So you completely dismiss it because it's not published in a journal? Fair enough and probably wise. No, I am not the guy in the video, just a random person.

I watch stuff like this for entertainment and take it with a big grain of salt because I know I'm not smart enough to confirm if it's truthful or not. Nevertheless it's fun to think about.

>>16707252
If you think I'm critiquing his fashion sense, and not the obviously wrong information on his infographic, then you're just as retarded than he is.

>>16707252
>smart enough
You aren't born with magical knowledge in physics, it is acquired. You have to believe in yourself to achieve anything. Don't discount yourself, if you love physics consider pursuing an education in it. It's a lot of math, mathematics is huge filter, but if you take your time and practice it is not so intimidating. It requires breaking down a concept into parts and learning by repitition.

>>16707272
>repetition*
Some people may have an innate ability to learn, but it is useless without confidence, persistence, and discipline. What you quantify as intelligence, knowledge of physics, is acquired and not something we are born with.

>>16707252
>I watch stuff like this for entertainment
You do not. Seriously, you boomers say this then believe the earth is flat because some AI generated video showed you the edges.

>>16707307
They're the same as women who spend hours upon hours every day talking about tarot readings, astrology, human design and check their daily horoscopes from their Natal charts. Then, when pressed on how it's all bullshit say "yeah but I don't take it seriously". I'd respect them more if they owned up to it. But they won't because they're scared of being called (rightfully so) a retard.

>>16707252
>I'm not smart enough to confirm if it's truthful or not.
>he said some stuff worth listening to.
Okay, so you cannot tell if it's truthful or not. Also, you merely watch for a entertainment. So, how exactly did you determine if anything he said is worth listening to?
This is what we mean when we say you want your cake and to eat it too (support bullshit without any of the responsibility that comes with supporting bullshit)
>>16707307
>>16707314

>>16707263
>obviously wrong information on his infographic
Which infographic? How is it wrong? The infographic in the OP pic is not his, it is the expected orbital velocities of stars in distant galaxies vs the observed rate.

>>16707307
>>16707314
lmao ok then, make up stories in your head about how I'm like a flat-earther or a woman who believes in tarot card readings, then proceed to judge and poo poo those made up personas

>>16707316
>So, how exactly did you determine if anything he said is worth listening to?
I've watched and read a lot of stuff(mainly popsci) on dark matter. So I am attracted to any plausible explanation for dark matter. I think this guy is basically saying that length contraction and time dilatation weren't accounted for when measuring the orbital velocities of stars in galaxies. When you account for that, and plot it on a graph, it equals the missing matter(dark matter) curve shown in the OP pic. I thought that sounds plausible and worth listening to. Now I come to 4chan to see what others think.

If you think he's a retard then say "He is a retard because X" where X equals a flaw in his logic, math or reasoning. So far I've just gotten that he's a retard because "you can tell", "he isn't published in a journal", "he is on youtube", "he sells books", "obviously wrong", *random tangents about flat earth and tarot card reading*.

troons mad

>>16707400
>I swear guise I totally only watch this for entertainment
>I definitely, cross my heart swear to God that I don't take it seriously
>I literally am so dumb I do not even understand what he is saying nor can I verify if it is right on my own
>That is why I humbly share it here
>Oh, I will also defend against any and all critiques as if my life depended on it!!
>I, uhm, just want you to make good arguments!

>>16707230 (OP)
Sure, maybe he's right. It's actually not that hard to come up with something like this.

But there are an infinite number of possibilities, so people naturally are going to take the safe route with the academia-industrial complex and their projects rather than go out on a limb with a random dude who has no funding.

>>16707428
There is a zero per cent chance he is right.

>>16707400
>>16707230 (OP)
Having saw the video I assumed he would thoroughly explain the equations here. He doesn't. He never explains how they were derived. He just skates over it. "Volume rates" means nothing in standard physics. He is basically handwaving, there is a lot of substance lacking. But the holes are pretty obvious.

The rotation curve he derives is flattened (sqrt(r)), but not flat. Galaxy rotation curves do not look like this they peak and are truly flat, some galaxies even show declines. All of this is totally inexplicable in his hypothesis. There is a reason he does not actually plot his theoretical curve on real galaxies, it wouldn't match the data at all.

Also, the equations he has have a single mass, a point mass. Galaxies are not point masses, you need to account for the real mass distribution to do anything.
The claim at the end about the bullet cluster is totally unjustified. There is no reason by his equations that the effect wouldn't follow the normal mass. There is no halo in his framework.

>>16707416
Nice made up exaggerated persona/intentions via a heckin' funny greentext. You totally OWNED that made up version of me bro!

>>16707428
Yeah that makes sense
>It's actually not that hard to come up with something like this
I assumed it would be difficult. This guy has been working on "fluid space theory" since the 90's if I remember correctly - I know that doesn't mean it's hard or correct, just saying. Do you know of other lesser known, fringe dark matter theories?

>>16707430
>There is a zero per cent chance he is right
A confident response. I like it! Now, because you are so confident, you must have a solid reason right? A mathematical error perhaps? A flaw in his logic perchance? Pray tell.

Reminder: other dark matter explanation theories are welcome in this thread. Preferably, lesser known ones.

>>16707437
Finally a solid post. Thank you.
>There is a reason he does not actually plot his theoretical curve on real galaxies, it wouldn't match the data at all.
I was wondering why he didn't do that. Good to know.

>>16707230 (OP)
The idea of space behaving like a fluid isn’t completely new, there are real theories like emergent gravity and superfluid dark matter that explore similar concepts. But for any alternative to dark matter to be taken seriously, it has to match actual data: not just galaxy rotation curves, but also things like gravitational lensing, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy cluster behavior (like the Bullet Cluster).
Unless this “fluid space” theory can explain all of that with real math and predictions, it’s more of a metaphor than a scientific theory. Sounds interesting, but without equations and data to back it up, it’s probably pseudoscience with a cool vibe.
So yeah, could be smart, but probably just confident and wrong.

>>16707479
He explains the Bullet Cluster in the video(but actually he doesn't according to this poster >>16707437 ), not sure if he explains gravitational lensing or the CMB in other videos, but I'll look out for that. Thanks.

>>16707230 (OP)

All kinds of jeet slop zhang slop and ai slop and publish or perish slop gets sloppily published

>>16707230 (OP)
He thinks hes smarter than all the real scientists who looked at this? Where are his papers? Where is the h index? This guy is a nobody

>>16707307
enjoy burning :)

>>16707230 (OP)
Ah yes, the galaxy brain who cracked cosmology but forgot to publish a paper. Definitely not a grift.