What is the Universe expanding into..

[Disco-Pete]

Why can't magnetic flux be a reasonable explanation?

 

[Galu]

A reasonable explanation of what?

 

[Disco-Pete]

As opposed to dark matter holding things in place.

 

[edbarx]

Another hypothesis for observations suggesting an unknown force is keeping galaxies and clusters held together is the Modified Newtonian Dynamics. This suggests gravity is stronger for very distant objects.

So:

g > GM/r^2 for very large distances, r

The difference from Newton's Law of Gravitation is slight, but this accounts for the extra force required to keep galaxies from disintegrating as a result of too much rotational speed.

 

[TNT]

Why can't magnetic flux be a reasonable explanation?

Of course - it's the "fluxcapacitor" :-D

//

 

[Galu]

Why can't magnetic flux be a reasonable explanation?

Electromagnetism can't substitute for the gravitational attraction of dark matter.

This is because the electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off quickly as the inverse of distance cubed, 1/r3, and not slowly as the inverse of distance squared, 1/r2, like gravity does.

So, on an astronomical scale, gravity dominates over electromagnetism.

 

[Galu]

g > GM/r^2 for very large distances, r

Thanks for some science edbarx! To put it another way, MOND strengthens the gravity of visible material, but only where it gets very weak.

This adjustment to gravity is in line with data on galactic rotation speeds obtained by solely observing their visible stars and gas.

Two opposing theories, I wonder which one is currently top of the pops? 😀

 

[Disco-Pete]

Electromagnetism can't substitute for the gravitational attraction of dark matter.

This is because the electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off quickly as the inverse of distance cubed, 1/r3, and not slowly as the inverse of distance squared, 1/r2, like gravity does.

So, on an astronomical scale, gravity dominates over electromagnetism.

Is LaPoint's concept centered around 'electromagnetism'? He talks about magnetic fields present from the smallest to largest scales responsible for the behavior of all matter. Is all magnetism "electromagnetism"?

 

[Galu]

Is all magnetism "electromagnetism"?

Yes.

 

[Disco-Pete]

Could the current model be modified to validate LaPoint's conjecture and still not debunk Einstein's General/Special relativity?

 

[Galu]

Aren't you paying attention?

LaPoint, who has since gone into hiding, was talking a lot of Sheetrock! 😛

 

[Disco-Pete]

Hey, you're talking to the unwashed here. I'm certainly paying attention but those in the know are expecting too much. OTOH, i appreciate your patience.


BTW, is that a DIG?


I happen to be a drywall Phd. having earned my doctorate the hard rock way!

 

[Galu]

"But beware of the dark side. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will…" ―Yoda

 

[Galu]

BTW, is that a DIG?

Not a dig, but a play on words that only you would understand! 🙂

 

[MITsound]

Isn't it true the voids in space aren't really voids?
Should there not be massive amounts of unilluminated (dark) matter atoms, scattered everywhere, and as cold as absolute zero?
I'm assuming this matter would be left over from the earlier generations of supernovae, which never coalesced into detectable large clumps, or possibly a lot of hydrogen atoms condensed from an earlier big bang.

I'm not sure I believe the light radiating omnidirectonally from each star in the universe is enough to darken the areas between stars and galaxies, to the extent that the sky is not completely lit up to our eyes perception.

Something's blocking out light, unless space expansion has stretched the wavelengths so much, some are out of the spectrum our eyes are evolved to see.
IMO.

 

[Disco-Pete]

Not a dig, but a play on words that only you would understand! 🙂

HEAR HEAR ALL DRYWALLERS! Stand up and be counted1, oops.🙂

 

[Disco-Pete]

Isn't it true the voids in space aren't really voids?
Should there not be massive amounts of unilluminated (dark) matter atoms, scattered everywhere, and as cold as absolute zero?
I'm assuming this matter would be left over from the earlier generations of supernovae, which never coalesced into detectable large clumps, or possibly a lot of hydrogen atoms condensed from an earlier big bang.

I'm not sure I believe the light radiating omnidirectonally from each star in the universe is enough to darken the areas between stars and galaxies, to the extent that the sky is not completely lit up to our eyes perception.

Something's blocking out light, unless space expansion has stretched the wavelengths so much, some are out of the spectrum our eyes are evolved to see.
IMO.

Good point. Doesn't light have to be reflected to be seen? At least subsequent to it's source radiation?

 

[Galu]

I'm not sure I believe the light radiating omnidirectonally from each star in the universe is enough to darken the areas between stars and galaxies, to the extent that the sky is not completely lit up to our eyes perception.

Something's blocking out light, unless space expansion has stretched the wavelengths so much, some are out of the spectrum our eyes are evolved to see.

The fact that the night sky is not completely lit up by the almost infinite number of stars and galaxies in the universe has become known as "Olbers' Paradox".

"The apparent paradox that if stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous. This is not the case because the universe is of finite age, and the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands."

 

[Galu]

@ Discopete.

I see you are still quoting the entire previous post.

My lesson seems to have been in vain!

 

[Galu]

Doesn't light have to be reflected to be seen?

No.