On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:42:30 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Gibbsa, >> >> No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. >> >> Of course "the hubble rate can keep on going, passing the speed of light >> barrier, and forever onward and upward. Because, and precisely because, >> it's not generated by a physical translation in space." >> >> I agree with that and that's exactly what I'm saying. It's Pierz that is >> disagreeing with you. Pierz thinks space is expanding without taking any >> physical objects along with that expansion. If that were true nothing there >> would be no red shift and there would be no particle horizon beyond which >> the expansion of space carries galaxies so they can no longer be observed. >> >> Things move both IN space and WITH the expansion of space. Things moving >> with the expansion of space red shifts them, things moving RELATIVE TO the >> expansion of space gives variations of red and blue shifts for objects at >> the same distances in expanding space. >> >> The expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space, but the space >> within galaxies, solar systems, etc. is gravitationally bound and is not >> expanding. Refer to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's 'Gravitation' if you don't >> believe me.... >> >> Our solar system is not expanding due to the Hubble expansion because it >> is gravitationally bound... If it was you'd have a violation of the laws of >> orbital motion. >> >> Therefore there must be a space warping at the boundaries of galaxies >> which must produce a significant gravitational effect over time which could >> explain the dark matter effect.... >> >
> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:11:25 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:22:34 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> >>>> PIerz, >>>> >>>> No, you are wrong here. Space doesn't expand around objects without the >>>> objects moving along with it. The positions of objects are positions IN >>>> space. Thus there is not a smooth expansion but the warping around >>>> galaxies >>>> I've pointed out. >>>> >>>> If you were correct the Hubble expansion of space wouldn't carry far >>>> galaxies along with it and redshift them. >>>> >>>> You are simply wrong here. Please remember that the next time you >>>> accuse me of being wrong about something! >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>> >>> Edgar, the opposite is true. The hubble effect is constant if the >>> comparison is between any two pairs of adjacent galaxies, one pair compared >>> to the other, obviously controlling for distance between them. It's >>> constant in that sense whether or not the overall effect is accelerating as >>> it is at the moment. >>> >>> If the galaxies are independently moving in space, the distance to >>> adjacent galaxies is changing, and has to be controlled for, to keep that >>> constant effect. >>> >>> If you skip a galaxy and want the rate of expansion between a galaxy and >>> the second galaxy along, then you have to add the two adjacent rates >>> together, controlling for changes in distance caused by independent >>> movement of galaxies in space. If you want the next galaxy after that, it's >>> adding 3 adjacent values. >>> >>> This is why the hubble rate can keep on going, passing the speed of >>> light barrier, and forever onward and upward. Because, and precisely >>> because, it's not generated by a physical translation in space. >>> >> > As mentionesd in the last post, large gradients are already in place > around galaxies, this this probably the boundary that forbids your > idea from breaking as a causality in the first place. > > Other than that the distinctions you make for redshift so on, definitely > puts us both on the page as regarding to that, and correctly redirectly my > ire to the other guy :O) > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:12:54 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't know why the warping effect is "obvious". All space is >>>>> expanding, including that inside galaxies but the gravity effect keeps >>>>> the >>>>> expansion from causing the galaxy to spread out. Imagine a soft disk >>>>> sitting on top of a balloon that is being blown up. The balloon surface >>>>> (space) both under and around the disk is expanding, but the object keeps >>>>> its size because of its internal forces. It's not as if there's some >>>>> boundary at the edge of galaxies at which expansion starts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:01:03 AM UTC+11, 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 >>>>>> >>>>> -- 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.
