Richard, Yes it is and I'd like to see it also but I don't have access to the astronomical data to do it myself. I'd love to have someone with the necessary background take a shot at it, but unless they somehow hear about the theory I don't see how would happen...
Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:48:20 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > Edgar, > > "dark matter space warping" as you call it is amenable to model > mathematically. > I think that is something we would all like to see. > Richard. > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Ghibbsa, >> >> Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter >> around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where >> my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to >> the unequal Hubble expansion. >> >> It is precisely that gravity normal matter gradient that, in the presence >> of the Hubble expansion, that causes the dark matter space warping. So it's >> already taken into account in the theory.... >> >> Edgar >> >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:13:59 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:09:29 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen 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.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgar >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of >>>>> the rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively >>>>> increases over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, >>>>> but compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of >>>>> decrease of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over >>>>> increasing distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be >>>>> to >>>>> progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the >>>>> source. >>>>> >>>>> As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the >>>>> effect entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and >>>>> because it progressively intensifies further from the source, and because >>>>> that means the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail >>>>> end >>>>> (because the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, >>>>> where >>>>> the rate at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted >>>>> beyond a certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that >>>>> actually slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased >>>>> rate of descrease after a point, is progressively exacberated by an >>>>> increased bias for slowing the other side of the point given there is now >>>>> less tension the other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the >>>>> other side of the line. >>>>> >>>>> So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than >>>>> predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth >>>>> decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a >>>>> shorter distance. >>>>> >>>>> All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the >>>>> observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser >>>>> ordinary matter in the galaxy. >>>>> >>>>> It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly >>>>> could be checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity >>>>> solutions. It doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the >>>>> conjecture part. >>>>> >>>>> 'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be >>>>> protesting of that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the >>>>> effort to understand so simple an idea. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Second thoughts - don't bother....it's not a good idea, nor something I >>>> personally believe in. I just remembered it thrown out in an earlier >>>> conversation. Just a little it was demonstration ideas at this sort of >>>> level are pretty easy to conjure up.....because everything about them is >>>> so >>>> easy to vary (to borrow a good idea from Deutsch) >>>> >>> >>> By the way Edgar, one thing I was saying (before mentioning that old >>> 'explanation' of mine) about your Dark Matter theory which I don't think >>> you understood (my bad, I probably didn't say it clearly) was about the >>> part of ordinary gravity in the picture. You've responded by saying we >>> already know that ordinary gravity cannot explain Dark Matter. >>> >>> That's true, but I was talking about ordinary gravity, taking the >>> supposition Dark Matter was being explained by your theory. So I definitely >>> wasn't talking at that time about ordinary gravity as an alternative to >>> your idea. >>> >>> What I was trying to point out, was that, if you take Dark Matter out of >>> the picture, then what you still have are gravity gradients around >>> galaxies, caused by ordinary gravity. That is, if you pull far enough away >>> from a galaxy, at some scale you can regard a whole galaxy as approximately >>> a single mass. And of course, around that mass there will be a gravity >>> gradient. >>> >>> The question I was asking was whether your expansion in between >>> galaxies, and the non-expansion within galaxies, would ever 'touch' in the >>> first place given there would be this pre-existing gradient around galaxies >>> caused by ordinary gravity? Does your idea not basically hinge >>> on a non-expanding space and an expanding space having a physical >>> contact, requiring a gradient to be there? >>> >>> But if ordinary gravity already supplies a gradient (that doesn't >>> explain dark matter) does not that amount to a pre-existing fire-wall >>> between expanding, and non-expanding space? >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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.
