I don't know whether or not your theory is true. However, one method of proceeding would be to slightly restate and restate the theory until it became stated in a way that tied in with some data. I'll give an example, but your intuition is important and you wouldn't necessarily restate it like I have done:
I might restate this as that the rate of acceleration of the expansion of space is some function of the degree of curvature of the space at that point. Then, the curvature of space changes as some function of the rate of expansion of the space. So the variables interact. One possible experiment, but it would require really sensitive instrumentation. Start with a less compressed sphere, and measure at 1/2 r from the center, and other points. Then compress the sphere. That will change the curvature of space at the original 1/2 r point. But the changed curvature at the 1/2 r point should be slightly different if your theory is correct than it would be if your theory is not correct. Jim --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
