[Little Bang]

A particle gains energy because it's apparent velocity is increasing due to the slowing of time. In the case of a wave it's wavelength becomes shorter because of slowing time. It is easier for a particle or wave to gain energy than it is to lose it. An anti-gravity device would need the ability to make time run backwards.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

A particle gains energy because it's apparent velocity is increasing due to the slowing of time. In the case of a wave it's wavelength becomes shorter because of slowing time. It is easier for a particle or wave to gain energy than it is to lose it. An anti-gravity device would need the ability to make time run backwards.

Anti-gravity is NO gravity.



Continued from above...

Here is a simplified illustration showing a 4-body system (e.g., four stars or four quasars). The field gradient, or gravitational energy potential is shown as a contour plot. The maximum curvature is directly surrounding the four massive bodies. This system has four maxima, four saddle points and one minimum.

Note: There are four Lagrangian saddle points between each body, in addition to the central region (the minimum of potential), which has similar characteristics. The inner-most region, however, is different than the prototypical L1 point.

The L4 and L5 Lagrange points are not represented in this illustration, nor are the L2 or L3 points (of which there would be many).

The determination of whether a body escapes a system or not is a very difficult problem. There are no known analytical methods for the general n-body problem (n>2) which detect escapes. However, it is possible to determine numerical criteria for the detection of escapes. Numerically these criteria can be verified, but as of yet the validity of such criteria has not been proven analytically.

Source

The formation of a system of the type depicted above would begin by gravitational 'collapse' of a gas cloud. A two-body system would emerge from the inhomogenous density fluctuations. As the system rotates, the Coriolis effect causes much of the remaining gas cloud to accrete towards L4 and L5 (at the third corners of the two equilateral triangles in the plane of orbit). The mass build-up continues on both L4 and L5 and becomes nearly equal to the mass of M1 and M2, respectively (the mass at L4 and L5 does not have to be negligible for stable equilibria). We now have a gravitationally bounded system consisting of M1, M2, M3, and M4 in a quasi-stable equilibrium. The conditions would have to be just right for this scenario to work, but not extraordinarily so.

Next. What happens to any remaining gas from the initial cloud? Some would gravitate towards the massive bodies. But note: Though the saddle points between each mass are unstable (when a particles is placed there), the central region is not. Indeed, material can (and does) agglomerate there, just as it does at L4 and L5, but here, without help from the Coriolis effect. Why this region is stable can be partially seen in the illustration above: it is rectangularly shaped, and becomes increasingly so towards the center. Note the similarity with this general configuration and that of the Einstein Cross (see above): four objects quasi-symmetrically surrounding a central body. Note too the similarity with the maxima and minima of barred galaxy central regions (to be discussed further in my next post).

A good question here would be: Why then, are certain objects shapes like barred galaxies, others like the Einstein Cross, yet others still like the classical Lagrange system (portrayed below), and finally none of the above?

The answer is: The illustration above (which represents, albeit in stylized fashion and in false colors) a simple two-body system where one of the bodies, less massive than the other, is rotating around the larger, more massive object.

As we move up the scale of both complexity (the number of bodies) and size of the system, the general configuration changes (e.g., to include objects or mass at L4 and L5, sometimes attaining or even surpassing the mass of M1 and/or M2, thus becoming a four-body system). And, perhaps the most remarkable feature is that [fractal-freaks are going to love this] the Lagrange system can be compounded one inside the other, i.e., and entire 2, 3, or N-body system, say, consisting of stars, or clusters of stars, may reside within a larger system which also displays Lagrange dynamics. That means that, e.g., that a galactic nuclei may be in a tightly bound Lagrange configuration, surrounded by yet another larger organization of maxima and minima (consisting of many objects and even more L-points), and additionally, those systems are located within an entire galaxy, the structure of which is consistent with Lagrange extrema locations. (It remains to be shown here if any galaxy clusters or superclusters exhibit this same pattern).

These active galactic nuclei might be of interest in the same context, though this possibility has yet to be explored;

Binary AGN X-shaped radio sources. From here


Or these (from here):


FR II radio galaxy Cygnus A as seen by Chandra.jpg




Chandra image of the core of the nearby Perseus galaxy cluster



The following is an enhanced (by Coldcreation) image of NGC 1300 in false color (from HST here)

In this image there are saddle points on either side of the galactic core. The entire bar rotates according to Lagrange dynamics. The rotational curve is virtually flat. This is the case, too, for many other galaxies that exhibit flat rotational curves. Regardless of whether there exists a bar or not, all galaxies the angular rotational curve for which is flat, should be examined for the Lagrange effect, i.e., the connections between maxima and minima (extrema), local and global potential (and other parameters such as energy) for a realistic dynamical model, describing motion/velocity of stars in galaxies.

It should be found that nonbaryonic dark matter is not required in order to reconcile GR with observations. It should be found, too, that the requirement for the existence of central supermassive black holes also vanishes.


Certainly there are system that do not overtly display Lagrange dynamics: the line-of-sight may or may not be perpendicular to the plane, the system may be in the process of forming such a pattern, the system may have been dispersed due to interactions, chaotic events, close encounters, the pattern may be immersed inside the galactic core (out of sight), interference for background objects, etc. What is observed most often (practically regardless of line-of-sight) are object aligned along an axis consistent with L3, M1, L1, M2, L2 (usually three or more bodies).

This detour from the gravitational mechanism topic, again, is to show that there is something inherent in nature that is responsible for maintaining the observed equilibrium of gravitating systems (so it is really not a detour at all). Some of the above photos are examples of such systems, and some of the illustrations attempt to explain how stability is maintained.

What we have - in the universe - are a series of massive objects (at the maxima potentials) and series (certainly more numerous) of points, lines, planes and regions (saddle points or minima - locally equal to zero) that act in geometrical opposition, via the gravitational field. These extrema are generally balanced (there are, of course, exceptional situations where equilibrium is compromised, e.g., due to supernovae, Roche lobe accretion or transfer, etc., but it could also be argued that these are all part of regulatory processes that occur as systems tend toward equilibrium).

So even though GR is the theory of choice to describe gravity (a curved spacetime phenomenon) the physical mechanism behind gravity itself must be illuminated and correctly interpreted. In doing so, Einstein's theory will become even more general: to include all observations (without the need for SMBHs, CDM or DE as supplements).




CC

[Little Bang]

Anti-gravity is NO gravity.

A condition which does not exist in this universe.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

A condition which does not exist in this universe.

That is relative Mein Herr Little Bang.

Tell that to a freely-falling object, or to a test particle placed at L1 (where gravity is cancelled: precisely to zero)
.
CC

[modest]

Speaking of anti-gravity,

Would a graviton be its own antiparticle? I guess like a photon all of its relevant quantum numbers would be zero meaning no anti-graviton.

-modest

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

L1 (where gravity is cancelled: precisely to zero)

But gravity is not really "cancelled" at L1. It's just that the combined gravitational forces (which are still present) equal close to zero.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by modest

Speaking of anti-gravity,

Would a graviton be its own antiparticle? I guess like a photon all of its relevant quantum numbers would be zero meaning no anti-graviton.

-modest

Or maybe a graviton is an anti-photon.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by freeztar

But gravity is not really "cancelled" at L1. It's just that the combined gravitational forces (which are still present) equal close to zero.

The gravitational field is cancelled at L1. So, The value of the field gradient is zero. That is why a test particle placed there will 'feel' no gravitational force (until it is displaced). Though L1 points are saddle points, they may or may not be the relative minima of the system. Other critical points may have higher or lower elevation in the potential of the system, but the field gravitational curvature gradient could still be zero.

In sum, gravity - spacetime curvature - is really zero at L1 (relatively, since it is not the absolute zero value of gravitational potential - the value at infinity). There are some very informative papers written on this subject. Any one of them will do. I will link some in my next post for you and others (say, Little Bang) that might be interested.



CC

[HydrogenBond]

Here is a simple question. The EM and nuclear forces when they act will give off energy. What is the nature of the energy given off when the gravitational force acts? If we call it an attractive force when two separated masses get closer and lower potential energy, it should show energy output.

Or, is gravity unique among forces, on recycle mode, placing that energy into the potential associated with GR? In other words, to create time dilation using SR we need to add energy. It would make sense that GR time dilation will also require energy, with that energy coming from energy recycle.

Where GR and SR are the same is time dilation and distance contraction. Where they differ is only SR will generate relativistic mass increase onto the existing mass. Because of the two out of three similarities, does gravity generate relativistic mass? In this case, it would have to appear from matter instead of adding to it. The affect would be mass burn into mass-energy for virtual affects. In the limit, particle mass would not be able to exist, i.e., black hole, to maintain the proper relativistic mass ratio for than amount of space-time affect.

[coldcreation]

.



Let's see if the Lagrangian pattern discussed throughout this thread extends to galaxy clusters.


Note the similarity of this image with the illustrations above (Original source):

Here is another set of images representing the galaxy cluster MS0735.6 + 7421 (Chandra X-ray image (left) and optical image (right), superposed with radio contours. This system, too, is consistent with Lagrangian dynamics.

The following cluster is interesting too: The original photo and article can be found here.

The most distant X-ray cluster of galaxies yet has been found by astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. Approximately 10 billion light years from Earth, the cluster 3C294 is 40 percent farther than the next most distant X-ray galaxy cluster previously known. [...] Chandra's image reveals an hourglass-shaped region of X-ray emission centered on the previously known central radio source and extends outward from the central galaxy for at least 600,000 light years. The presence of such this hot, gravitationally bound gas is evidence of a massive cluster.

I will bet my lucky stars that the central radio source is sitting directly at the L1 saddle point (in halo orbital position).

Note: these systems, unlike many of Arp's examples, are not thought to be chance alignments of background objects. i.e., they are associated according to the mainstream interpretation, yet they display many of the same geometric characteristics: a bright (active) central source flanked by objects lined up along an axis (and likely connected by luminous bridges).


Here are a few more examples of galaxy clusters that display a similar pattern (from this source):

This is one of my favorites, Abell 2218:

Source: Morphologies and stellar populations of galaxies in the core of Abell 2218

This result, together with the distributions of ages, metallicities and masses, indicates that E-type galaxies are more massive and have older stellar populations, while L-type galaxies are less massive and have a wider range of stellar Our results agree with a proposed two-step scenario for the evolution of galaxies in clusters. In addition, an extremely blue merging galaxy system is found at the core, with the nominal redshift of the cluster.

Conclusion: Galaxy clusters, in addition to planetary systems, stellar systems and galaxies display a pattern typical of Lagrange dynamics. The L1 saddle point, though unstable, can (and does) provide the site for the collection of mass: usually a bright radio source, which likely formed as a halo orbiting massive cloud. Once it becomes massive enough stability is ensured since it develops its own gravitational potential well (flanked by new L1 points on either side, with large groupings of galaxies further out along the same line) Even though, the dynamics intrinsic to the object may remain chaotic, especially if it occupies a rectangular minima (more on this later). The pattern is M1 - L1 - M2 (and occasionally with galaxies occupying L4 and L5).





CC