tierradelfuego

Hey, Cold -- "I'm still getting my ducks in a row too. It's not easy." Yes, I agree ... but I have been waiting a year and a half! :-) I am glad to read your recent postings. You are finally revealing more details on your broad cosmological model (and by "broad", I include the nuclear/subatomic ramifications), in which I believe you have significant insights. But I am dying to read at least a sketch or an outline of your overall picture! Let's get on with it! Naysayers be damned! :-p I love the idea that the Lagrange points have much overlooked significance, particularly with respect to Arp's work. Dark matter, dark energy -- pfft! "I fart in their general direction!" There are many objects out there that are screaming for a new explanation -- quasi-stellar objects, objects with discordant redshifts, some of the peculiar galaxies, some of the objects that are incorrectly thought to be gravitationally lensed images of other objects, ... anything else? And you are on track for saying something more significant, for which I only have a couple of bits and pieces from your previous postings. To the current dispute ... It seems to me that if one accepts Einstein's equivalency principle, then one should not have a problem with your assertions about a saddle point at L1. That is the precisely the gist of the issue. When someone argues against your point that you are somehow lacking in respect for the centripetal acceleration of M2 towards M1, I would argue the opposite, and in fact, an argument against your point lacks an understanding of the equivalency principle, and hence, its significance to what you are trying to emphasize. Einstein said in GR -- no difference. No difference. No difference. ... My qualm -- with respect to a two-body problem (say, Sun-Earth), are you ignoring the solar system's galactic centripetal acceleration (let's assume an ultra-simple model in which the solar system is orbiting a central galactic mass)? So is not L1 merely an approximate saddle point, hence, L1 is not flat with regard to L1's galactic orbit? And so on ... Milky Way's orbit within the local cluster, etc? However, as one changes to larger and larger frames of reference, does not the Lagrangian points with respect to the objects involved get "flatter" in some "absolute" sense, in the sense of an absolute frame of reference (to the degree that one can employ that concept in a post-Einsteinian cosmology)? And could that be what you are hinting at? For example, in a simple "cluster" of galaxies in which a small galaxy is rotating about a much more massive galaxy, can't the Lagrangian points be described as being "flatter" than the Sun-Earth Lagrangian points? Or the solar system's Lagrangian points with respect to a simple Milky Way model? And the "flatter" a Lagrangian point, the more significant it is within your "cold matter creation model" (my short-hand term)? Just guessing here as to where you are going, but the "flatter" the point, the more prolific its "ability" in matter creation? Hence, the active regions at the Lagrangian points around galactic clusters? Am I on the right track? If so, did I guess too much or reveal too much? I think that I see bits and pieces of the whole picture. I am dying to read an explanation from you for how your model explains the discordant redshifts. I cannot conceive at all how this would be -- but, hey, I should not feel too bad, it's your model, not mine. ;-) --Tierra

Ka-kow: an interjection. An exclamation of glee over one's good fortune in a given event. Similar to "cha-ching" in financial matters. Usage: "My archenemy just died. Ka-kow!" (Acknowledgment to "Frisky Dingo").

Bup-bup: an interjection. A rude manner of discontinuing another person's oral commentary. Usage: A: "The point I was trying to make..." B: "Bup-bup!" (Acknowledgment to "Frisky Dingo").

This is a complex topic. To think that you are going to be able to create your own country by simple declaration is ridiculous. You should do your own research. SECESSION.NET would be a good place to start.

Why did you drop a syllable? A casual guess at the definition of "restudable" would be "capable of accepting a stud multiple times", e.g., whatever article might require a stud, maybe an article of leather. I would think that "restudiable" would be a better neologism for your concept.

reel real

If you were born in Texas, these probably sound the same: dill, deal fill, feel hill, heel kill, keel mill, meal nil, kneel pill, peel sill, seal till, teal will, weal etc.

flour flower

for four fore

The solar system. Talk to the moon and ask her what her name is. She is a goddess that has feelings, too. :winter_brr: I also like the suggestion of "George". "I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze him."

Thoughts are more than just the electromagnetic/electrochemical signals; you would need much information about the underlying structure. So even if you could do a good job of recording "brain waves", you would still need a detailed model of the underlying human brain to understand many thoughts. For example, you can capture lots of information from a computer by recording the electromagnetic signals that it leaks; in some cases, that may be enough to understand a particular function (e.g., graphic data), but it may fall far short of providing a significant understanding of the functioning of the underlying computer hardware/software. I would wager that an artificial organic brain should be possible sometime in the future, but capturing the "content" from a particular person's brain seems much more difficult.

Yes, assuming that humans survive on Earth long enough, there will be another person in the field of physics that attains the influence of Einstein, though one cannot predict when this might happen. His remark shows either an incredible assumption that he had enough empirical observations about reality to formulate said theory or an incredible disdain for the value of future empirical observations and the ability of someone to employ those future empirical observations to formulate said theory. (Note that I am not implying that said theory shall be formulated.) Perhaps it is true, and perhaps it is false. Perhaps no one will ever formulate said theory because the composite elements of said theory, that is, the component theories, are themselves not capable of combination, or are not completely valid representations of reality.

Yes.

:singer: As I was walking down the street one day, A man came up to me and asked me what the time was that was on my watch, And I said Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? If so I can't imagine why. We've all got time enough to cry. :singer:

[math]-1 = e^{\pi i}[/math]