On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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.... > I worked with John Moffat on the RV re-entry plasma wake at MIT when he consulted in Lincoln Laboratory for the summer of 1968. Richard > > Edgar > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:41:58 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >> >> `````````````` >> 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. > -- 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.
