One always finds out what Edgar doesn't mean...
On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:42:30 PM UTC+11, [email protected] 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. >>> >> > No that isn't what I meant. If you read the balloon analogy carefully > you'll see I was saying something else. Imagine several soft disks sitting > lightly on top of the balloon as it expands. The disks will not grow due to > the internal forces that prevent the slight friction from the expanding > balloon surface from causing them to expand. However, they will move apart > from one another as the balloon expands. That was my understanding. I once > heard a cosmologist say that you can't feel the force of repulsion due to > cosmological expansion between your fingers because at that distance it is > imperceptibly small. But if your fingers were at either end of the universe > you'd feel an immense pressure pushing them apart. So my understanding was > that cosmological expansion exists right here in this room, but is more > than compensated for by the other forces tending to hold objects together, > including gravity. Where I think I erred was in separating gravity and > expansion in my mind - there is only one underlying time-space continuum > which is being operated on by the two forces. Within galaxies gravity holds > sway and space does not expand. Far enough away from galaxies, gravity > gives way to expansion. I don't see the inevitability of warping because > the counteracting effects of gravity will attenuate slowly as you move away > from a galactic centre. It's not like there's a row of pins around the > galactic edges which hold space in place. > > >> 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, [email protected] 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 [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. > -- 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.
