On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:01:03 PM UTC, 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 > It's an idea but I don't really get why expanding one side and not the other translates to a physical gradient. Conceptual presentations of the difference in gradient terms are feasible, but nothing is carried by that alone. I don't personally endorse comparing one theory to another with a view to keep one and delete the other. I do think there is good method and bad method though. What your idea looks like to me, is a seed insight. That is the very first step on a pretty long road to a theory. IMHO it's really poor form to burn someone else's seed insight. But it's terrible form to present a seed insight as if it's more. There needs to be a translation to some basic independent reality check. It doesn't have to be a lot, but getting a foothold there delivers something a million eloquent words will not. The idea is checkable in various ways. Whole clusters of galaxies may be gravitationally bound. Are you able to translate your idea to an expectation of some kind of distinction between halos around those galaxies? Or, can your idea explain the unique properties of the galaxy + halo. Why is the result a gradient of gravity near enough from the centre to the edge, such that the orbital speed of bodies the orbital speed is near enough constant throughout? Why the correlations with the supermassive black hole I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs. I respect your idea, and also your wider theory, that you fulfilled a life long dream to accomplish that. The most significant development - for me - about the 'Edgar' chapter in the voluminously unwritten History of Everything (list) is the by product of almost no progress being made, that saw variability and veneer fall away allowing distinctive traits to become much clearer to see. A significant fraction of yours are arguably negative or counter-productive. But what they did real nail, is the basic authenticity of your story, because a lot of them are reasonable as offsets for the shortfalls of long term intellectual projects in effective isolation. While others go a long way to authenticating your ideas are substantially your own work, for example, that you find it hard to be interested in other peoples ideas, and that despite your obvious gifts and interest in precisely that, you never learned the core mainstream theories beyond the level of a well informed amateur (there's a definite worsening progression to your responses to hardening challenges). It is a negative in this context, but by the same coin, it all comes together as a substantial authentication of you as your claims about you. The significance of that is actually considerable, Your idea about p-time looks wrong to me, and I think it's probably explained by the fact you had a really good seed insight about everything having to be massively more synchronized , with massively more sameness. I definitely buy that. But the consequence you computed about a single logical structure was slightly flawed because that is not the only possible explantion. Then you moved too quickly to a consequence for that before you had time (or perhaps maturity as this section you were really young) That was p-time. It's possibly one of the least powerful insights of your whole theory, but it came right at the start, and got locked in because intuition became locked in by the character of the sequence. You don't have to agree...it's just part of what I think. But the other part comes by the authentication effect. You know, the amount you get right in that overall theory, for the level of isolation and personal gravity for the process of thinking your own ideas. I mean, so much of that is so right, and so anticipates the culmative position in science right now. THAT'S the accomplishment and the substance.
-- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
