Jim, A theory I've proposed to explain dark matter is this. INTERgalactic space is expanding but INTRAgalactic space is not since it's gravitationally bound. Therefore there will be a distortion in the fabric of space at the boundaries. And of course any distortion of space produces gravitational effects. Therefore the result would be a gravitational halo around the edge of galaxies which is more or less how 'dark matter' manifests.
What do you think? Edgar On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:59 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > It is proper for you to be skeptical. This is a very tentative hypothesis and > its links to quantum processes is even more tentative. > > If the expansion of the universe is not accelerating, then the tentative > hypothesis falls since the expansion in acceleration is central to it. If > there is no dark energy, but the expansion of the universe is nevertheless > accelerating, then the acceleration would still need to be solved. > > If we go back a ways, I don't think "inflation" is a process we know anything > about either. > > On dark matter, I don't know what to think. I suppose an unknown massive > particle which doesn't interact electromagnetically sounds possible. A little > stranger, but still perhaps possible, is the supergravity explanation of dark > matter. But I don't know of much evidence supporting the existence of branes. > So I don't know what to think there. > > Jim > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > > > Jim, > > > > I leave to others the opportunity to comment point-by-point on your post. > > > > Because I am an Observer, and Instrumentalist, in Astronomy, I am dubious > > and skeptical that the utmost has yet been done in digesting all the > > indications regarding a need to invoke "Dark Energy", in Universal > > Expansion. > > > > In fact, I am working on this now. The observations seem secure, but > > certain assumptions are what I question. > > > > It seems to me that there is no guarantee that Supernovae at the earliest > > epochs ought to be JUST as bright as those at later epochs (epochs closer > > to ours, when/where stars have more heavy elements on-board, by accumulated > > nucleo-synthesis, than at the earliest times). > > > > Metallicity changes behavior of stars. Astronomers know this. Yet some feel > > confident to smear out the differences, or to ignore them. I don't. > > > > I think so-called "Dark Energy" will be shown to be a fluke. > > > > But the reality of Dark Matter is much more easily convincing. I see no > > hiding place for Ordinary Matter. The fact is that the rotation curves of > > disk galaxies are NOT Keplerian; this has been an *intense* embarrassment > > in Astronomy and Physics since about 1970, and it has not much been leaked > > to the Public. "Dark Matter" has been invoked since the beginning, and no > > one yet knows what it is. The word(s) is/(are) a place-holder, for... > > Something. And it is real. > > > > It remains an embarrassment. > > > > --Joe > > > > > "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > One:: [snip] > > > >
