One always finds out what Edgar doesn't mean...
On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:42:30 PM UTC+11, ghi...@gmail.com 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. >>> >> > No that isn't what I meant. If you read the balloon analogy carefully > you'll see I was saying something else. Imagine several soft disks sitting > lightly on top of the balloon as it expands. The disks will not grow due to > the internal forces that prevent the slight friction from the expanding > balloon surface from causing them to expand. However, they will move apart > from one another as the balloon expands. That was my understanding. I once > heard a cosmologist say that you can't feel the force of repulsion due to > cosmological expansion between your fingers because at that distance it is > imperceptibly small. But if your fingers were at either end of the universe > you'd feel an immense pressure pushing them apart. So my understanding was > that cosmological expansion exists right here in this room, but is more > than compensated for by the other forces tending to hold objects together, > including gravity. Where I think I erred was in separating gravity and > expansion in my mind - there is only one underlying time-space continuum > which is being operated on by the two forces. Within galaxies gravity holds > sway and space does not expand. Far enough away from galaxies, gravity > gives way to expansion. I don't see the inevitability of warping because > the counteracting effects of gravity will attenuate slowly as you move away > from a galactic centre. It's not like there's a row of pins around the > galactic edges which hold space in place. > > >> 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, ghi...@gmail.com 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 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. > -- 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.
