[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

The physical mechanism is that of gravity (spacetime curvature) itself. Though before moving on to the actual mechanism behind the gravitational interaction, there are still a few points to make.



To be continued...




CC

You have my attention anyway CC.... This Lagrange quasi-stable equilibrium configurations are fasinating and important factors in understanding the clock work mechanisms of our world. I have extrapolated this as a possible mechanism for order in evolution, but I want to first let you continue with your thread before my next post.

[UncleAl]

Moderator should relocate this verbose bloviating crap to the verbose bloviating crap board. Unless the OP can calculate GPS clock correction for velocity and altitude vs. a ground observer he is an ass. General Relativity calculates them both, overall correct to less than 0.3 parts-per-billion, in two lines of arithmetic verified by observation

[freeztar]

UncleAl, please refrain from making posts such as the above which are considered rude and offensive.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by ;215920

...snip... Unless the OP can calculate GPS clock correction for velocity and altitude vs. a ground observer...snip... General Relativity calculates them both, overall correct to less than 0.3 parts-per-billion, in two lines of arithmetic verified by observation

Einstein’s principle of general relativity accounts for the gravitational effects described in the OP. Time dilation and redshift have to be accounted for, and they are indeed. Time dilation: Moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks from the perspective of the stationary observer (7 µs slower for GPS). Redshift: clocks in a weak gravitational potential are faster compared to clocks in a strong gravitational potential (45 µs faster for GPS). The result is that the GPS signal frequencies were set lower during design to allow for the 38 µs faster clock (Nelson 2002).

Certainly, residual eccentricity in satellite orbits cause variations in the time dilation and red shift. Receivers are, thus, designed to account for these variations (Nelson 2002), and variations there are. (See BROADCAST VS PRECISE GPS EPHEMERIDES: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. See too Clock Synchronization and Navigation in the Vicinity of the Earth

The general relativistic corrections for GPS are needed in part for the reason (in addition to others, such as motion) that I set out to describe in this thread, i.e., that the gravitational potential surrounding the earth is stronger or weaker depending on location (and it should be weaker along the M1-L1-M2-L2 Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon axis).

So in addition to committing an ad hominem attack (snipped), the author of the above post has resorted to a straw man fallacy tactic.



CC

[coldcreation]

Probably the most stunning example of a contested celestial object is the imposing Einstein Cross or G2237+0305 (illustrated above). We noticed that this structure may actually be in a Lagrangian quasi-equilibrium configuration, where the points M1, M2, L4 and L5 are occupied by four quazars of z = 1.70.

L1 however, in the center of the system, is the sight of a low redshift, z = .04, 14th magnitude galaxy (Arp 1998). The entire structure very closely resembles the form of a two connecting Lagrangian equilateral triangles and appears perfectly stable.

The standard interpretation used to describe this structure resorts to the utilization of a general relativistic concept called gravitational lensing—the gravitational field of the central body is supposedly splitting the image of a background quasar into four separate components. According to the standard redshift-distance interpretation the group cannot be located in the same region of space; otherwise they should have the same redshift. It is for this reason that tempers have been raised in this thread.

As Hoyle and Arp, I argue that there are four different quasars in this system. Halton Arp and Fred Hoyle demonstrated that there are luminous connections between the central object and at least one of the high redshift quasars—proof that the objects in Einstein’s cross are connected: The spectrum confirms that this is a low density, exited hydrogen filament connecting the two objects of vastly differing redshift. (Arp 1998, p. 175).

So, it would appear that three interpretations emerge based on the observational evidence: These quasars are one background object gravitationally lensed (the standard interpretation), ejections of four different quasars from a central galaxy (Arp's interpretation), or in a quasi-stable equilibrium Lagrangian-like configuration.

In the former, it should be shown why the quasar image is not distorted (arc- or ring-shaped). And, why the background quasar would split into four (as opposed to, say, three) distinct images. Arp must show that these objects are ejected, i.e., moving away from the central object. For now that is not clear, since the connecting filaments and redshift do not provide the answer. As far as diverging redshift (quasars/galaxy) Arp has a mechanism (believe it or not). In the latter in must be shown (by Coldcreation) that there is indeed a pattern observed, consistent with Lagrangian mechanics. Too, it must be explained how objects of differing redshifts can be found in the same system (connected).




CC

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

You have my attention anyway CC.... This Lagrange quasi-stable equilibrium configurations are fasinating and important factors in understanding the clock work mechanisms of our world. I have extrapolated this as a possible mechanism for order in evolution, but I want to first let you continue with your thread before my next post.

It is indeed a fascinating topic. Here are a few more examples (some contested and others not) of systems that display a remarkable geometric structure:

NGC 4151 taken from here and enhanced

Note the Lagrangian-like configuration in both the simulation of NGC 4151 and the actual barred spiral galaxy (in false color)

M83 taken from here and enhanced

This image of M83 shows high energy radiations in the X-ray region. This is an optical image in false color of the spiral galaxy. There is also an overlay of contours in x-ray intensities, as measured by the joint U.S.- German Rosat (Roentgen Satellite). Note the close-spaced contours around the galactic core, along with several other x-ray "hot spots." The positioning of these areas has a striking resemblance to the Lagrange point system.

This object was taken from here and enhanced

This system is a prototypical example of an object interpreted as a gravitationally lensed quasar by a foreground galaxy. Note that the object appears very nearly to be a bounded (connected) system in quasi-stable equilibrium of the Lagrangian type.

Abell 2218 taken from here - as is the following text: "The core of Abell 2218 consists of two major clumps (see Fig. 0). The first clump is centred on the CD galaxy, the second is centred on the bright galaxy that is represented by the central cross on the map. This detailed distribution map again shows a significant offset. There is another interesting thing, though. The peak in the mass distribution that is associated with the central galaxy - which is the brightest and most probably the most massive one - is actually a saddlepoint between the two peaks associated with the crosses on either side of the central galaxy."

This galaxy cluster is also prototypical. There are many of these (or similar) configurations. Note, as pointed out above, that "brightest and most probably the most massive one - is actually a saddlepoint between the two peaks associated with the crosses on either side of the central galaxy." It is my opinion that the bright central galaxy is formed from material accreting onto a halo orbit around L1, between two masses (the two "peaks"). So this Lagrangian phenomenon is not only a mechanism for stability, but too, for the actual formation of gravitating systems. (More on the aspect of formation to come).

There are many other examples to be found, just about anywhere one is willing to look, of systems bounded under the influence of gravity that display the Lagrangian geometric structure (even in/and especially in structures that are known to be physically associated). This is particularly important because it shows that there is a very definite pattern of complexity and organization inherent in nature that manifests itself on all scales (at least macroscopically, and certainly microscopically). Therefore, there must be a natural law, fundamental principle, or physical mechanism responsible for this non-random formation and organization of gravitating bodies (and for all material objects).

The point of this thread is to determine (to show) exactly what that mechanism is and why it is so important, not just for astronomy, but for cosmology and physics in general.



CC

[Thunderbird]

Yes these emerging structures that can be seen in the universe in a hierarchal configuration.

It appears as clocks within clocks within clocks, one embedded within the next. One stabilizing the next.
You have to ask yourself the question what makes these clocks?
I do not know all the complex formulae, but I will simply say time makes a clock.

These type of findings are leading us to see that the center of the galaxies are not the destroyers as much as creators of order. An original master clock.

My question to you CC is how likely is it that this highly ordered configurations could align a series of smaller black holes around our central black hole in our galaxy? Enough to reach the event horizon in a cyclical pattern? Could the center of galaxies tick like a clock giving off gravity waves?




Look at the clock face..... all the simple elements are there..... from the center point of the singularity to the cycles of movement created around it.

The arrow of time is created in the relationship between a central stability point, the Singularity that allows the hand, representing the elements of movements of time and the stability of the singularity to create further contextual relationships between stable points on the clock face and the movement of the hand. Put one up in the center of a town and everyone synchronizes their lives around it.

The Universe is constantly seeking to lower it's energy (like a stream meandering down a valley, sometimes becoming rapids or cataracts), as it continually breaks it's initial higher (energy and dimensioned) symmetry. This symmetry-breaking can be pictured as bifurcating branches of probabilities, of chance and causality intertwined. The reason for this is that the higher energy/dimensions of the Universe's origin were also highly symmetrical, which paradoxically, means that they were also extremely unstable. Highly symmetrical objects are unstable ( imagine the beginning of the universe as being like you sitting on a perfect, highly polished sphere), and have a high probability for instability because any deviation by you from the north pole will have you rapidly slipping off. Here, gravitational instabilities quickly break your symmetrical position at the north pole and pull you to a lower gravitational potential energy state. So small initial deviations in unstable, far from equilibrium situations can lead to massive, even cosmological consequences. The Butterfly effect (also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions), is literally, Universal.
Ludwig Boltzmann is known to us as the first to provide a probabilistic, statistical interpretation of entropy. This is simply the tendency of everything in the Universe to cool to a minimum energy or temperature --- known as thermal equilibrium. The route to this second law of thermodynamics is via increasing disorder in the organization of energy and matter.
The current symmetry-breaking from the initial condition leads therefore, from a highly symmetrical, ordered and energetic state towards the opposite, an asymmetrical,

disordered and lower energy one; from a low entropy Big Bang to a higher entropy present and future.
The great paradox of the second law then, is the evident, increasingly complex, emergent and hierarchical order we see all about us. How is this ordered, structured information (expressed in constantly oscillating patterns of matter and energy) allowed to coalesce and persist from this tendency towards the random --- towards increasing entropy?
Dynamical systems theory also deals with probability and can therefore allow us to synthesise thermodynamics and so-called "Chaos", (which is really a highly complex form of hierarchical, enfolded order that appears to be disorder). The really interesting area here though, is the entities at the transition zone between ordered, stable systems at equilibrium (maximum entropy) and "disordered" (but complex) and unstable Chaotic (minimum entropy) ones. According to the Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine, these far from equilibrium dissipative systems locally minimize their entropy production by being open to their environments --- they export it in fact, back into their environments, whilst importing low entropy. Globally, overall entropy increase is nevertheless preserved, with the important caveat that the dissipative system concerned often experiences a transient increase (or optimization) of its own complexity, or internal sophistication, before it eventually subsides back into the flux.
This is known as the region of alternatively, Emergence, Maximum Complexity, Self-organized Criticality, Autopoiesis, or the Edge of Chaos. (Nascent science debates nomenclature routinely - and appropriately, in this case, the crucial point being that they are all different terms for essentially the same phenomena.)

http://http://cc.msnscache.com/cache...d8c&FORM=CVRE5

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Moderator should relocate this verbose bloviating crap to the verbose bloviating crap board. Unless the OP can calculate GPS clock correction for velocity and altitude vs. a ground observer he is an ass. General Relativity calculates them both, overall correct to less than 0.3 parts-per-billion, in two lines of arithmetic verified by observation

This is one of the least offensive posts in this thread!

Let's take a look at a really offensive sentence:

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Note the Lagrangian-like configuration in both the simulation of NGC 4151 and the actual barred spiral galaxy (in false color)

What is "Lagrangian-like" about the configuration of any elements of the galaxy? Is it that there are elements of the galaxy that are arranged in a circle? Is it that elements of the galaxy are between other galaxies? The poster doesn't actually say.

Rather than address any actual data or any actual scientific work on the objects in question, the poster simply presents a theological pronouncement on the objects in question and uses this in some sort of sophistic presentation of what is not even an alternative to traditional gravity theory.

This is something that is not even wrong. The poster tells an untruth by saying that, "The point of this thread is to determine (to show) exactly what that mechanism [for organizing gravitating bodies] is and why it is so important, not just for astronomy, but for cosmology and physics in general." This is a lie because the poster is obviously not interested in discussing the actual evidence of what the actual organization is. Rather, the poster wants to tell us what we should think the organization is and then use this in a sophistic presentation of a hypothesis about the universe as a whole and gravity specifically.

If the poster could address UncleAl's pertinent questions, then I will retract this claim. However, this will not happen.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Let's take a look at a really offensive sentence:

What is "Lagrangian-like" about the configuration of any elements of the galaxy? Is it that there are elements of the galaxy that are arranged in a circle? Is it that elements of the galaxy are between other galaxies? The poster doesn't actually say.

It is very common to speak of maxima or minima in the force-ratio maps for galaxies, and particularly for barred spiral galaxies where the effects of maxima and minimum potential become important dynamically. However, these maps may be unreliable if the mass-to-light ratios of these regions differ from the dominant old stellar background. These maps generally outline the ratio of the tangential force to the mean axisymmetric radial force - equivalently to the gravitational torque per unit mass per unit square of the circular speed. (Buta, Block and Knapen, 2003) (or Buta and Block 2001). My use of the maxima and minima of potentials for galaxies, or galaxy clusters, is straight forward, and not at all far off the beaten mainstream path. The minima of potential (often located in a saddle-point region) may relate (or not) to Lagrange points. Indeed, galaxies and clusters often display (albeit convolutely at times) a structure whereby the maxima of gravitational potential is the most massive region of the galaxy of cluster. The minima of potential is located is an area where gravitational potential is close to zero (the least massive region of the galaxy or cluster), corresponding (possibly) to Lagrange points or regions (some of these regions may acquire mass, just as they do in the solar system).

The idea that Lagrange points are a ubiquitous phenomena present in galaxies and clusters is not new. These are numerically determined equipotential contours of the effective potential based on observational evidence: optical, radio, x-ray regions, etc). What is emphasized here, however, is the importance of such points. It can be shown that the minima of potential is equally as important as the maxima of potential for any given system. In another way, both the maxima and minima are involved in the dynamical processes (formation, stability, longevity, and so on) of gravitationally bounded systems. Recognizing these patterns is not always evident for a variety of reasons.

Here is one example of Lagrange points associated with barred galaxies: Populating Stellar Orbits Inside a Rotating, Gaseous Bar

Be sure to click on Fig 1ab of the same work.

Or

Fig. 10 also of the same paper.

Or any of the other illustrations presented in the same work.

Here is a sample of the text (see the link above for the full work):

Notice that, as with simpler models of rotating bars or oval distortions, e.g. Binney & Tremaine (1987, §3.3.2), ? CB displays four prominent extrema outside of the central, elongated potential well. Two relative maxima appear above and below the bar (these are associated with the traditional L4 and L5 Lagrange points), and two saddle points (associated with the L1 and L2 Lagrange points) are marked by asterisks to the left and right of the bar. The L1 and L2 points are located at a dimensionless distance R L2 = 1.36 from the origin and, for all practical purposes, define the maximum extent of the bar along the major axis. The solid curves in Figs. 2a and 2b show the quantitative variation in ? CB along the major and intermediate axes, respectively, of the bar. Along the intermediate axis, for example, the effective potential varies from a value ?min = ?1.018 at y = 0 to a value associated with the L4 and L5 maxima of ?L4,L5 = ?0.503. Along the major axis the effective potential climbs to a somewhat lower value, ?L1,L2 = ?0.603, before dropping again at positions |x| > R L2. As Fig. 1a illustrates, the Cazes bar has two mild off-axis density maxima. These density maxima help support a corresponding pair of slight off-axis minima in the effective potential. The minima are not immediately evident from the contour levels used in Fig. 1b, but they can be seen in Fig. 2a. We note that the equipotential contours do not trace out simple quadratic surfaces — they have, instead, an overall “peanut” shape — and the contours exhibit a slight spiral twist.

Certainly, there are "Lagrangian-like" characteristics intrinsic in the configuration of elements of most (if not all) galaxies, and galaxy clusters. Obviously they are more visible when the line of site is perpendicular, of nearly so.

No offence...

CC

[UncleAl]

STURGEON WAS AN OPTIMIST

Move this thread to the

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg

forum where it belongs. There is a perceptible difference between a parlour and a water closet. Each has its own properly accommodated audience.