Jim, I agree it needs a mathematical statement to be tested. That would involve general relativity equations.
Can't be tested with a small local sphere. There is no local distortion since it's all inside the gravitationally bound galaxy. Edgar On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:02 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
