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 On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:41:58 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > `````````````` > On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:28:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
