`````````````` On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:28:47 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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 > p.s. the same effect would obviously drastically reduce the gravity between galaxies the further apart, which could correspond to some point in the universe evolution, that sees a transition to an accelerating expansion. Which could be felt as faster expanding the further apart, but a little more clumping the nearer in. These cliff things would probably scale up to any clumping, possibly as something a lot like the gravitational lensing seen from here, only steeper or more so, than expected. So it could all work out more or less right. Still a load of old bananas though.
-- 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.
