On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:42:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Gibbsa, > > Thanks for your comments. As I stated in my initial post this is a > "possible" explanation of dark matter, not necessarily the only one. (so > your "seed" comments are irrelevant). > Any unfairness wasn't intended that I'm aware. Leaving aside the 'seed' part, the comment about the reality check was the bridge to commenting more generally about your work. You probably know already, that the part of what a theory says that is open to philosophy peaks very early - actually before the theory exists. The inner peak is about where the seed insight comes from. The arrow of everything after that, progressively takes everything away from the theorist, by shifting all of it up to the structure level. It's obviously not the theory driving the shifting, but the successive decisions of the theorist.
The part of this that is widely understood is that we can't change the logical consequences of a theory. The part that isn't so widely known is that where it all actually ends up is translated to structure. And the consequences following from that. One which being the mutual exclusivity of either choosing the prediction/verification as the driving force behind the progression of the theory, or giving primacy to self-consistency for the driving energy. which necessarily stacks as much as possible as near as possible to the initial conditions, and then generates successive consequences by holding the principles stacked at the start, constant. You can't have both, because the initial conditions plus consequences plus consistency will quickly begin to see points where individual lines of consequences cross to the other side of eachother. As this effect builds up the criss-cross points will progressively draw ever smaller circles around spaces that all subsequent consequences must fit into to keep consistency. The crisscross points becoming characteristics that must define those consequences. As such both the potential and the value of prediction wastes away, because the part that isn't set by the consequences that came first gets smaller and smaller. The reason that only the prediction/test route is science, is that only this route generates the unanticipated new discovery, by continually adjusting to reality checks. and only the prediction/check route contains the properties of both directions together. The initial conditions + consistency + consequences route on its own progressively makes prediction, impossible, on the other hand. That is why that direction goes back to pre-scientific philosophy, and why powerful science is always a process that builds in regular reality checks as predictions. > Obviously it needs to be confirmed by comparing the predicted warping to > the actual dark matter observations. And of course that needs to be done > around galaxy clusters as well as individual galaxies. It is obvious that > the effect will be complex due to the complexity of distribution of mass in > space rather than just geometrically perfect halos. 1 > Do you say here that the halo us is both the space not expanding in galaxies, and the mass as well? Where does this leave a space for gravity? By the way, the fact that conventional gravity creates a very significant gradient around the bounds of a galaxy, is also a strong candidate for the kind of up front barrier that would prevent the expansion of spacing on the one side physically detecting the non expansion on the other side in the first place. The gradient is already and that's already a major boundary. > > But,of course expanding one side of a continuous space but not the other > will lead to a boundary warping. That's simple geometry. Thus it should > inevitably have some gravitational effect and that effect should be fairly > significant due to the 13.7 billion year history of the Hubble expansion. > Time for plenty of warping to have occurred. > I think traditional gravity is the obstacle you and the expanding space will need to get past, for any such effect. > > Edgar > > > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:18:16 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:01:03 PM UTC, 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 >>> >> >> It's an idea but I don't really get why expanding one side and not the >> other translates to a physical gradient. Conceptual presentations of the >> difference in gradient terms are feasible, but nothing is carried by that >> alone. >> >> I don't personally endorse comparing one theory to another with a view >> to keep one and delete the other. I do think there is good method and bad >> method though. What your idea looks like to me, is a seed insight. That is >> the very first step on a pretty long road to a theory. IMHO it's really >> poor form to burn someone else's seed insight. But it's terrible form to >> present a seed insight as if it's more. >> >> There needs to be a translation to some basic independent reality check. >> It doesn't have to be a lot, but getting a foothold there delivers >> something a million eloquent words will not. The idea is checkable in >> various ways. Whole clusters of galaxies may be gravitationally bound. Are >> you able to translate your idea to an expectation of some kind of >> distinction between halos around those galaxies? >> >> Or, can your idea explain the unique properties of the galaxy + halo. Why >> is the result a gradient of gravity near enough from the centre to the >> edge, such that the orbital speed of bodies the orbital speed is near >> enough constant throughout? Why the correlations with the supermassive >> black hole >> >> I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs. I respect your idea, and also >> your wider theory, that you fulfilled a life long dream to accomplish that. >> The most significant development - for me - about the 'Edgar' chapter in >> the voluminously unwritten History of Everything (list) is the by product >> of almost no progress being made, that saw variability and veneer fall away >> allowing distinctive traits to become much clearer to see. >> >> A significant fraction of yours are arguably negative or >> counter-productive. But what they did real nail, is the basic authenticity >> of your story, because a lot of them are reasonable as offsets for the >> shortfalls of long term intellectual projects in effective isolation. While >> others go a long way to authenticating your ideas are substantially your >> own work, for example, that you find it hard to be interested in other >> peoples ideas, and that despite your obvious gifts and interest in >> precisely that, you never learned the core mainstream theories beyond the >> level of a well informed amateur (there's a definite worsening progression >> to your responses to hardening challenges). >> >> It is a negative in this context, but by the same coin, it all comes >> together as a substantial authentication of you as your claims about you. >> The significance of that is actually considerable, Your idea about p-time >> looks wrong to me, and I think it's probably explained by the fact you had >> a really good seed insight about everything having to be massively more >> synchronized , with massively more sameness. I definitely buy that. But the >> consequence you computed about a single logical structure was slightly >> flawed because that is not the only possible explantion. Then you moved too >> quickly to a consequence for that before you had time (or perhaps maturity >> as this section you were really young) That was p-time. >> >> It's possibly one of the least powerful insights of your whole theory, >> but it came right at the start, and got locked in because intuition became >> locked in by the character of the sequence. >> >> You don't have to agree...it's just part of what I think. But the other >> part comes by the authentication effect. You know, the amount you get right >> in that overall theory, for the level of isolation and personal gravity for >> the process of thinking your own ideas. I mean, so much of that is so >> right, and so anticipates the culmative position in science right now. >> THAT'S the accomplishment and the substance. >> >> >> >> > -- 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.
