Ghibbsa, Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to the unequal Hubble expansion.
It is precisely that gravity normal matter gradient that, in the presence of the Hubble expansion, that causes the dark matter space warping. So it's already taken into account in the theory.... Edgar On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:13:59 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:09:29 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> >>>> Ghibbsa, >>>> >>>> I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here >>>> and see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to >>>> me. I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might >>>> produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter. >>>> >>>> In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories >>>> proposed in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that >>>> of John Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems.... >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of the >>> rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively increases >>> over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, but >>> compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of decrease >>> of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over increasing >>> distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be to >>> progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the >>> source. >>> >>> As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the effect >>> entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and because it >>> progressively intensifies further from the source, and because that means >>> the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail end (because >>> the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, where the rate >>> at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted beyond a >>> certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that actually >>> slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased rate of >>> descrease after a point, is progressively exacberated by an increased bias >>> for slowing the other side of the point given there is now less tension the >>> other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the other side of the >>> line. >>> >>> So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than >>> predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth >>> decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a >>> shorter distance. >>> >>> All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the >>> observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser >>> ordinary matter in the galaxy. >>> >>> It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly could >>> be checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity solutions. It >>> doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the conjecture part. >>> >>> 'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be protesting >>> of that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the effort to >>> understand so simple an idea. >>> >> >> >> Second thoughts - don't bother....it's not a good idea, nor something I >> personally believe in. I just remembered it thrown out in an earlier >> conversation. Just a little it was demonstration ideas at this sort of >> level are pretty easy to conjure up.....because everything about them is so >> easy to vary (to borrow a good idea from Deutsch) >> > > By the way Edgar, one thing I was saying (before mentioning that old > 'explanation' of mine) about your Dark Matter theory which I don't think > you understood (my bad, I probably didn't say it clearly) was about the > part of ordinary gravity in the picture. You've responded by saying we > already know that ordinary gravity cannot explain Dark Matter. > > That's true, but I was talking about ordinary gravity, taking the > supposition Dark Matter was being explained by your theory. So I definitely > wasn't talking at that time about ordinary gravity as an alternative to > your idea. > > What I was trying to point out, was that, if you take Dark Matter out of > the picture, then what you still have are gravity gradients around > galaxies, caused by ordinary gravity. That is, if you pull far enough away > from a galaxy, at some scale you can regard a whole galaxy as approximately > a single mass. And of course, around that mass there will be a gravity > gradient. > > The question I was asking was whether your expansion in between galaxies, > and the non-expansion within galaxies, would ever 'touch' in the first > place given there would be this pre-existing gradient around galaxies > caused by ordinary gravity? Does your idea not basically hinge > on a non-expanding space and an expanding space having a physical > contact, requiring a gradient to be there? > > But if ordinary gravity already supplies a gradient (that doesn't explain > dark matter) does not that amount to a pre-existing fire-wall between > expanding, and non-expanding space? > > > -- 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.
