Liz, It was Pierz that said that's not what HE meant, not me.
It would be nice if you would actually READ and comprehend what you are replying to for a change. You are obviously replying to your own prejudices here rather than to the actual post which you didn't even read correctly! Edgar On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:57:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > One always finds out what Edgar doesn't mean... > > > On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> 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.
