Hi Cable, Thanks for the expressed concern.

You said

“So you mean gravity depends on where we are in the galaxy?”

Actually, the effect of gravity depends on were we are located in time historically. Since it is my contention that the effect of gravity is a function of cosmic time (as believed by Dirac), a rapidly rotating core of a galaxy should exhibit the effect of gravity when the universe is younger. This is predicted by the slowing of time associated with the principles of special relativity. (Presently the rotational rates are not especially relativistic, this was not the case when galaxies were quasars).

Given this model, one would predict that stars observed in the cores of galaxies should be rotating around each other too fast to maintain celestial stability. If one did not know this relationship was in effect, one would assume there must be additional matter within the core a galaxy maintaining celestial stability. Ergo we have the assumption that there must be a “massive black hole” in the center of the galaxy.

You then said,
If this is true, then we are making huge errors by extrapolating "our" gravity to the whole universe, kuz "our" gravity depends on the position of solar system in the MW, our galaxy.

You are right, “we” ie the “mainstream” are making huge errors.

It is within the core of a galaxy, which experiences a significant slowing of time due to special relativity. The curve describing the effect of gravity across a galaxy is hyperbolic with the cusp located within a few hundred light years of the center of the galaxy.

Also, the effect of gravity between two objects is also determined by where in time the two objects are being measured. Our sun’s gravitational relationship to the core is based upon the historical relationship between the two “objects”. Two objects locally will have little historical separation so their gravitational relationship is based upon the current “local” gravitational relationship.

Note that the discovery of a “massive black hole” in the center of galaxies is a recent discovery, whereas the discovery of the “excessive” rotational rates of stars around the edge of a spiral galaxies goes back to the early to mid 1900’s. (Zwicky 1930 something) Did anyone say that this extra mass “discovered” in the cores of galaxies was upsetting our understanding of the gravitational effects with the stars in a galaxy and our sun? No, they just “adjust” how much “dark matter” must be in a galaxy.

In order to keep our present understanding in which the effect of gravity is “constant”, it is necessary to assume that there is a massive black hole in the cores of galaxies, and that there has to be some kind of distribution of “dark matter” within galaxies that varies at a specific rate from the center of a galaxy.

All I offer is a choice; use dark matter and black holes to preserve celestial stability, or allow the effect of gravity to vary according to a very specific geometrically described rate associated with a uniform expansion of space-time.

Snowflake.

Don't you think it more likely that 'acceleration' is the [i]currently understood theory[/]i?

Personally, I had always preferred a decellerating universe, but the evidence doesn't seem to fit my personal preference. So, accellerating it is.

snowflakeuniverse wrote:
I don't see why we have to choose one over the other, the total truth is never going to be fully answered conclusively. All we can do is get closer and closer till eventually our model will predict everything we can test. At the moment we can't even seem agree on the model.

Personally I don't beleive that redshift is fully doppler, but I don't beleive that there is no doppler red shift either. I beleive there is dark matter, but not to the extent that is currently being calculated. The sum of all the effects is what we observe, attributing the whole of our observations to one (x)or the other is probably retarding our progress more than anything else.

It would make more sense to spend our energies on determining which is the major effect and slowly work our way through them if possible.

Speaking of subtle effects, anyone have an idea just how much the power/solar winds would have an effect on the rotation near the core of galaxies?

__________________
MrObvious

It would be even more intresting if we could change our vote. Mine's changed since this thread first started...

__________________
MrObvious

...and I get to offer a third choice: radiation from the faster moving stars in inner galaxy modulates the radiation near the edges, creating an illusion that the edges of the galaxy are rotating faster than they really are...Have you seen the new custom hubcaps that have free floating spinners inside the spokes? The spinners keep moving long after the wheel has stopped.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

But, jwj - what are you saying exactly?

Are brighter galaxies supposed to have "more" of this effect, for instance, as they are brighter after all?