On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT > to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark > matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see that your mention > of a gravity gradient "I have to get past" is relevant... > > Edgar > Edgar how do you envisage there would be no large scale resolution of the combined gravity of the galaxy? I'd doubt that is what is being said, because there's no way for that to make any sense. The planets have their gravity, around suns with their gravity, out to the whole galaxy including all the dust and gas, get far enough back and that's approximately a mass, with a gravity. The dark matter component accounts extra gravity the radial velocities of the galaxy say to be there. As an aside I was going to mention (since you expressed curiosity in your original post) that ages ago over on FoAR, I didn't speculate the same thing but sort of related, in that I wondered whether gravity might behave slightly differently as it compounded for increasing scales and density. I'm thinking the more gravity stacks up vertically, the more rapidly, the slower it falls away relative to the thin end where its furtherest extent current is. Not in that the big vertical stack falls away more slowly. That's the part that stays exactly inverse with r^2. But that where the thicker slice is adjacent to the thinner slice (imagining two cross sections jingling against each other) the slightly thicker slice is very slightly pulled back toward the even thicker slice right behind and so on. The overall proportionality is then preserved by transferring a tiny bit of the thinner adjacent back to the thicker behind it. Which it in turn rebalances by pulling a little slice from the one ahead. Another way to do this would be to keep all slices constant in the summed gravitational energy, by making slices near the massive object itself infinitesimal thickness, and each slice subsequent however much thicker it needs to be, to be the same summed gravitational energy. So the thickness of the slices get ever longer the ever smaller the gravity becomes. It would only require a very tiny imbalance back in the direction of increasing gravity, for the effect to be well into resolving toward the edge of the galaxy as decreasing as expecting, and then suddenly WHAM, off a cliff, almost vertically straight down to nothing (because the tail accelerated its thinning away to effectively nothing at an ever more resolved juncture) What sort of effect would that be in spacetime fabric? What would the acceleration be like when objects approach the galaxy and suddenly fall off a gravity cliff accerating wildly toward the centre, but also in the tangential direction as well. Anyway, the reason I thought it might make sense, is firstly the effect would literally not exist in any gravity that we could accurately measure. It'd pretty much be as expected right out to the cliff, because the tiny imbalance was paid for entirely by the tail end. Secondly, it wouldn't be just one cliff. There would be some direct correspondence with the rate at which the galaxy becomes more dense, varies then tails off end to end. Galaxies aren't necessarily symmetrical in a straight line from one end to the other through the middle. What's interesting about that, is that the same effect would exist in both directions, but the 'pattern' would be a mirror reflection each side..opposite...reflecting the distinct increase/decrease in structure one way vs the other. Something else would be what this would look like in the case of the supermassive blackhole at the centre. The immense gravity could see the end to end process to completion a relatively short R from the supermassive blackhole. Which would see a still very large tail end doing something slightly different. But the effect on bodies near the black hole would be almost nothing, then whoosh, off a massive cliff toward the centre of the blackhole, but tangentially also. so massively accelerating the orbital speed, possible passing escape velocity (assuming not passed event horizon). But then hitting that gravity cliff from the bottom end, and so bouncing off it back toward the centre. So real instability of orbiting stuff, for fasting than expected orbital speed, but trapped by what is effectively a second event horizon further out in the form of that cliff. So the friction and collsions would be extreme, the heat and speed more than expected, and maybe some resistence to crossing the event horizon until the friction slows everything down. Maybe that's why the really huge supermassive's can sometimes produce that vast jet...maybe the energy has to escape that second event horizon, and can only make it up the hill as pure energy of the moistest extremely uncivilized sort. Just a load of bananas
> > > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:45:08 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:42:30 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> >>>> Gibbsa, >>>> >>>> No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. >>>> >>>> Of course "the hubble rate can keep on going, passing the speed of >>>> light barrier, and forever onward and upward. Because, and precisely >>>> because, it's not generated by a physical translation in space." >>>> >>>> I agree with that and that's exactly what I'm saying. It's Pierz that >>>> is disagreeing with you. Pierz thinks space is expanding without taking >>>> any >>>> physical objects along with that expansion. If that were true nothing >>>> there >>>> would be no red shift and there would be no particle horizon beyond which >>>> the expansion of space carries galaxies so they can no longer be observed. >>>> >>>> Things move both IN space and WITH the expansion of space. Things >>>> moving with the expansion of space red shifts them, things moving RELATIVE >>>> TO the expansion of space gives variations of red and blue shifts for >>>> objects at the same distances in expanding space. >>>> >>>> The expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space, but the >>>> space within galaxies, solar systems, etc. is gravitationally bound and is >>>> not expanding. Refer to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's 'Gravitation' if you >>>> don't believe me.... >>>> >>>> Our solar system is not expanding due to the Hubble expansion because >>>> it is gravitationally bound... If it was you'd have a violation of the >>>> laws >>>> of orbital motion. >>>> >>>> Therefore there must be a space warping at the boundaries of galaxies >>>> which must produce a significant gravitational effect over time which >>>> could >>>> explain the dark matter effect.... >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:11:25 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:22:34 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> PIerz, >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you are wrong here. Space doesn't expand around objects without >>>>>> the objects moving along with it. The positions of objects are positions >>>>>> IN >>>>>> space. Thus there is not a smooth expansion but the warping around >>>>>> galaxies >>>>>> I've pointed out. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you were correct the Hubble expansion of space wouldn't carry far >>>>>> galaxies along with it and redshift them. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are simply wrong here. Please remember that the next time you >>>>>> accuse me of being wrong about something! >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgar >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edgar, the opposite is true. The hubble effect is constant if the >>>>> comparison is between any two pairs of adjacent galaxies, one pair >>>>> compared >>>>> to the other, obviously controlling for distance between them. It's >>>>> constant in that sense whether or not the overall effect is accelerating >>>>> as >>>>> it is at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> If the galaxies are independently moving in space, the distance to >>>>> adjacent galaxies is changing, and has to be controlled for, to keep that >>>>> constant effect. >>>>> >>>>> If you skip a galaxy and want the rate of expansion between a galaxy >>>>> and the second galaxy along, then you have to add the two adjacent rates >>>>> together, controlling for changes in distance caused by independent >>>>> movement of galaxies in space. If you want the next galaxy after that, >>>>> it's >>>>> adding 3 adjacent values. >>>>> >>>>> This is why the hubble rate can keep on going, passing the speed of >>>>> light barrier, and forever onward and upward. Because, and precisely >>>>> because, it's not generated by a physical translation in space. >>>>> >>>> >>> As mentionesd in the last post, large gradients are already in place >>> around galaxies, this this probably the boundary that forbids your >>> idea from breaking as a causality in the first place. >>> >>> Other than that the distinctions you make for redshift so on, definitely >>> puts us both on the page as regarding to that, and correctly redirectly my >>> ire to the other guy :O) >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:12:54 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know why the warping effect is "obvious". All space is >>>>>>> expanding, including that inside galaxies but the gravity effect keeps >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> expansion from causing the galaxy to spread out. Imagine a soft disk >>>>>>> sitting on top of a balloon that is being blown up. The balloon surface >>>>>>> (space) both under and around the disk is expanding, but the object >>>>>>> keeps >>>>>>> its size because of its internal forces. It's not as if there's some >>>>>>> boundary at the edge of galaxies at which expansion starts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:01:03 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's one more theory from the many in my book on Reality: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Misner, Thorne and Wheeler note briefly in their book on >>>>>>>> Gravitation, INTERgalactic space is continually expanding with the >>>>>>>> Hubble >>>>>>>> expansion, however INTRAgalactic space is NOT expanding because it is >>>>>>>> gravitationally bound. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now the obvious effect of this (as I'm the first to have pointed >>>>>>>> out so far as I know) is that space will necessarily be warped at the >>>>>>>> boundaries of galaxies, and as is well know from GR any curvature of >>>>>>>> space >>>>>>>> produces gravitational effects, and of course dark matter halos around >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> EDGES of galaxies were invented to explain the otherwise unexplained >>>>>>>> extra >>>>>>>> gravitational effects on the rotation of galaxies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus, this simple effect of space warps around the boundaries of >>>>>>>> galaxies caused by the Hubble expansion may be the explanation for the >>>>>>>> dark >>>>>>>> matter effect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It may or may not be the cause of the entire effect, but it >>>>>>>> certainly must be having SOME effect, and over the lifetime of the >>>>>>>> universe >>>>>>>> one would expect that warping effect to be quite large. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And there is nothing to prevent these warps, once they are created, >>>>>>>> to have a life and movement of their own, as we now know that dark >>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>> is not just concentrated around galactic halos but may indicate where >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> used to be.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd be interested to see if anyone else sees how this effect might >>>>>>>> explain dark matter... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
