twin body theory

[IG2007]

Here is something I believe Indian Genius will enjoy. You remember that we talked about the two body system, in particular about Sun and Jupiter. Remember I said that just having a title about two bodies does not make the rest of the Universe(s) go away? Well I’m going to post about NGC5033. What, you complain, it doesn’t exist. It isn’t in the title! Well, sorry, it does exist and if you ascend to your roof you will find it at Right Ascension 13h 13m 25.5s and Declination +36o35’38 – well, I must admit that I haven’t been out to look. Anyway, for the sake of not arguing, let’s assume it is there, twinkling away at 10.8 magnitude (do galaxies twinkle, or just stars? I’ve forgotten. (If you want to check on that magnitude the reference is "NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database" (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/). Results for NGC 5033.

Anyway, I bet you are asking, what has this to do with two bodies mutually attracting? Well, I hope we have agreed that there are more than two astronomical bodies in the Universe(s). So I want to discuss NGC5033.

NGC 5033 and the nearby spiral galaxy NGC 5005 comprise a physical galaxy pair. The two galaxies weakly influence each other gravitationally, but they are not yet close enough to each other to be distorted by the tidal forces of the gravitational interaction. The fainter irregular galaxy IC 4182 is also a member of this group. Obviously this group of galaxies will adjust to their own cog (centre of gravity) and our Sun and planet Jupiter are so far away that they can be counted as negligible. Actually, they are around 40 million light years away, so I am sure you will agree that the contributions gravity wise are pretty much zero.

BTW I should have mentioned that NGC5033 is a Seyfert Galaxy which, as you know, means that it is one of the two largest groups of active galaxies, along with quasars..

Now integral field spectroscopic observations of the centre of NGC 5033 indicate that the Seyfert nucleus is not located at the kinematic centre of the galaxy (the point around which the stars in the galaxies rotate). This suggests that this galaxy has undergone a merger.

The galaxy appears to have two different centres due to the conflict between the former centre and the centre after the merger. It also suggests that they have not yet (as of 40 million years ago ) sorted out where their cog is!

I think you might enjoy this because it shows the complete contrast between the two body scenario and the idea of two galaxies colliding and working out where the cog will be.

Seriously, I promised you something to stretch your brilliant brain. I hope this does.

Cat

Woah, that's quite interesting. It seems that the two galaxies have recently gone under a merger. And, it seems to me, just a guess, that the gravitational waves haven't yet reached the whole galaxy. But that is weird, because speed of gravity waves = light waves= radio waves. Either, there is something else we have not yet seen, like a small quasar or blackhole. Or, the stars take time to make a new orbit.

Or, woah, that's even more interesting. The galaxies NGC 5005 and IC4182 have created a gravitational whirlpool in another part of NGC 5033. That's even more interesting to see three galaxies interacting within themselves in gravitational waves. This is really interesting.

Or, wait a sec, that's impossible! The space distortion of the previous blackhole that has been merged is still there! This is much more interesting if this is true.

PS:Cat, galaxies appear as small twinkling dots in the night sky as well. They also twinkle. It seems we have to change the poem. (hope you understand the last line, )

 

[anadybella]

Kindly, anyone tells me how does mars affect on our life?

 

[IG2007]

Kindly, anyone tells me how does mars affect on our life?

How can Mars affect our life?

 

[Catastrophe]

As far as I know, only in astrology.

 

[anadybella]

As far as I know, only in astrology.

Astrology, so I need to contact with astrologers.

 

[IG2007]

Astrology, so I need to contact with astrologers.

This is not the place for astrology, I guess. No offense.

 

[Catastrophe]

This is not the place for astrology, I guess. No offense.

I am a scientist so I cannot really recommend astrology. However, I am a scientist who actually spent a lot of time on the subject. I cannot recommend you what to do for legal reasons but I would suggest that you might like to look at one or two good books first. My interest was decades ago so I suggest you might like to do a search, possibly Amazon, and look at the reviews.

As a side note, Halley (of comet fame) is said to have considered astrology. This refers:
"As evidence the following anecdote is often quoted: when the astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), of comet fame, once spoke depreciatively on the subject of astrology, Newton is said to have berated him with the remark: “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!”"





;

 

[anadybella]

I am a scientist so I cannot really recommend astrology. However, I am a scientist who actually spent a lot of time on the subject. I cannot recommend you what to do for legal reasons but I would suggest that you might like to look at one or two good books first. My interest was decades ago so I suggest you might like to do a search, possibly Amazon, and look at the reviews.

As a side note, Halley (of comet fame) is said to have considered astrology. This refers:
"As evidence the following anecdote is often quoted: when the astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), of comet fame, once spoke depreciatively on the subject of astrology, Newton is said to have berated him with the remark: “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!”"





;

Thank you so much for your beautiful response.

 

[Think twice]

Gravity has no distance limit. any body in the universe exerts a force on any other body. Most are just too distant to have an observable effect. so the earth appears to orbit the sun, but so do the other bound objects in the solar system, such as the moon and Jupiter. it is not just one twin body solution, but multiple solutions that must be considered. This is how Neptune was discovered, by its gravitational influence on Uranus.
it is also how the existence of the hypothesized planet Vulcan was disproved after the effect of gravitational frame dragging was added to the orbital equations for Mercury.

You have to be careful,about the use of "disproven" for Vulcan. No planet was found or exists as LeVerrier assumed...but his calculations showing mercury precession could be explained by an n3 or greater calculation...WAS NOT disproved. He correctly proved that by spreading the mass of the sun across its volume , instead of assuming it all lies at a theoretical center as Newton incorrectly assumed...did explain mercuries precession. No need for relativity.

 

[IG2007]

You have to be careful,about the use of "disproven" for Vulcan. No planet was found or exists as LeVerrier assumed...but his calculations showing mercury precession could be explained by an n3 or greater calculation...WAS NOT disproved. He correctly proved that by spreading the mass of the sun across its volume , instead of assuming it all lies at a theoretical center as Newton incorrectly assumed...did explain mercuries precession. No need for relativity.

Hmm... But, can Newtonian Gravity do the same what Relativity did in the blackhole stuff?

 

[Think twice]

Hmm... But, can Newtonian Gravity do the same what Relativity did in the blackhole stuff?

No, true. (Black holes aren't neccesary in a classical model). But I think the jury is still out on black holes. For instance the latest big proof (m87)seemed to me to not be so good evidence. Where's the accretion disc? Answer "oh! just by chance the BH just happened to aligned perfectly in exactly the one angle at which you wouldn't see the disc"!! ..not so convincing. If you say a BH would have an accretion disc and your models confirm this...then not seeing one is not a successful prediction in my opinion. It's like when the latest gravitational wave wasn't seen in one of the detectors. " Oh! it happened to be coming from exactly the right direction where it couldn't be detected by that detector"!!! Personally I don't accept a no detection as a detection.