0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your gas cloud just got 33% less dense (33% increase of volume from a 10% increase in radius). It would seem to require gas to be condensed to form stars, else they would already have been stars when the gas cloud was tighter.
They've tracked it quite closely through more than a full orbit now. It doesn't have any kind of regular bobbing activity. S2 does seem to be the sort of object referred to in the article, being a large young star in a highly eccentric orbit about Sgr-A. That one gets particularly close to it.
QuoteS2 has a clear bobbling orbiting path.Please look at the following diagram:http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sblkhole.htmWe see clearly that the measured locations of S2 are not directly at the elliptical orbital cycle.I don't see it. I see an ellipse (viewed almost edge-on) and every measurement falling on it within the margin of error. Nothing in the article suggests an irregularity to the orbit, or especially a regular one.
S2 has a clear bobbling orbiting path.Please look at the following diagram:http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sblkhole.htmWe see clearly that the measured locations of S2 are not directly at the elliptical orbital cycle.
This is the biggest mistake of our scientists!
In order to understand this important issue, let's look at the example of the Moon/Sun orbital cycle/Let's assume that the Earth is invisible from outside. Therefore, it is actually a VHP for the Moon while this one orbits around the Sun.
So, if we try to monitor the Moon/Sun orbit, while we have no clue if the Earth is there, what shall we see?The Moon/Earth orbital radius is:R1 (Moon/Earth) = 384,400 Km.The Earth/Sun orbital radius isR2 (Earth/Sun) = 149,600,000 Km.The ration is: R1/R2 = 384,400 / 149,600,000 = 0.0025
In this example let's assume that the Moon/Earth orbital cycle is located at the same Earth/Sun orbital cycle.
Therefore, if we try to monitor the Moon/Sun orbital cycle, we might see that the moon is moving in almost a perfect cycle, with very minor error.
If we randomly monitor the location of the Moon, it is clear that the error fit is in the range of Zero to 0.0025.Just if we monitor the moon while it is at its maximal/minimal distance from the sun (R2+R1 or R2-R1) we can get that maximal error fit of 0.0025.
From statistical point of view the chance to get randomly to the maximal 0.0025 Error is very low.
The error should be mainly greater than Zero and lower than 0.0025.Now, please, let me remind you that in this example we don't know if the Earth (which is the VHP of the Moon) is there.So, if we give those results to our scientists, what would be the answer?
If you also look carefully, we see that the SMBH is not located at the symmetrical point in that orbital cycle.It is located too close to the left bottom side.
If the moon has a period around Earth that is a month (something less than a year), and the measurements are all a worse margin of error than this 0.0025, then a sufficiently large sample of measurements would suffice to detect Earth, or the lack of it.
The idea is: The Moon/Earth orbital cycle disc plane is located at the same Earth/Sun orbital cycle disc plane.
Again - In this example we want to verify that just by monitoring the locations of the Sun & moon in one cycle (one year) we should find that the Earth is missing (assuming that we don't see it in our verification).
So, you understand the idea of this example. You also agree that if we see that our measurements of the moon has a small variations from the expected perfect orbital cycle (even if it is less than 0.0025) we should know that the moon must orbit around some other object.
We call it Earth, but we can also call it VHP (as we don't see it in our example).
Therefore, I still don't understand why do you still support our scientists while they have clearly neglecting the variations of S2 locations from the expected perfect orbital cycle? They call those variations - Errors. But those variations are very important observations.
Let me use the example at a different perspective:Let's assume that the Moon/Earth orbital cycle disc plane is located vertically to the Earth/Sun orbital cycle disc plane and it orbits directly in the Earth/sun orbital cycle.
Let's also assume that our vantage point is perpendicular to the Earth/Sun orbital plane.Therefore, it is clear that in all the verifications of the Moon location points we should see that it is perfectly located directly at the expected orbital cycle around the Sun.
So, without any variations (or errors) from the expected orbital cycle, we might think there is no need for the earth to explain a perfect orbital fit of the Moon around the Sun.
However, there is another key verification - Velocity."KEPLER’S SECOND LAW DESCRIBES THE WAY AN OBJECT’S SPEED VARIES ALONG ITS ORBITA planet’s orbital speed changes, depending on how far it is from the Sun. The closer a planet is to the Sun, the stronger the Sun’s gravitational pull on it, and the faster the planet moves. The farther it is from the Sun, the weaker the Sun’s gravitational pull, and the slower it moves in its orbit."So, in a real elliptical orbit we should find that the velocity of the planet is decreasing smoothly as the farther it is from the Sun.However, in this example, Due to the Moon/Earth orbital path, sometimes the moon orbits in the orbital Earth/sun direction, and sometimes on the opposite direction (I hope that you understand me correctly).Therefore, we should find the moon is not smoothly increasing or decreasing its orbital velocity as it orbits around the sun.So, we have two ways to verify if the Earth (or the VHP) is there.
One - By verify if there is variations (error) in the verified moon location with reference to the expected orbital elliptical cycle.Two - By verify if there is none smoothly variations in the orbital velocity.
With regards to S2 - Even with the assumption that our vantage point is not perpendicular to the plane of S2's orbit, we clearly see that S2 Does not fulfill the two requirements.
Therefore, it shows that S2 must orbit around a VHP while this one might orbit the SMBH.
Each one of them orbits around a VHP while all of those VHP orbits around the SMBH.Why can't you agree with something which is so clear to us?
QuoteTherefore, I still don't understand why do you still support our scientists while they have clearly neglecting the variations of S2 locations from the expected perfect orbital cycle? They call those variations - Errors. But those variations are very important observations.They've probably run a Fourier transform on the data and found no regular orbit to it. That's why asked if you had done that. You seem to be getting your data from pictures and conclusions written by somebody else, rather than from the actual measurements taken. If you claim a pattern to the data, take the data and demonstrate it.
Gravity force is computed by GMm/r² and M is zero for a VHP, so the gravitational force exerted by a VHP is zero, and thus a VHP cannot pull a star into an orbital path by gravity.
Anyway, if you're talking only about the center of mass of multi-star solar systems, then this idea is not controversial. Yes, that point exists, and the motions of the member stars does not move it one bit, but the point goes around the galaxy more or less as a unit. The sun wiggles around its own point, with the point being inside the sun about half the time, and outside the other half. The (quite predictable) path around that fixed point is anything but elliptical. It resembles more of a scribble with no particular cycle to assign a period length.
Our scientists can do it better.Please look at fig 1.4 in pg. 20Center of Mass at Offset Positionhttp://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/dissts/Koeln/Mouawad2005.pdfThey claim clearly, that just based on the Red line they could set the Keplerian fit. Based on the Green line there is no fit.
However, they were also forced to shift the major axis in order to get the fit.Please see pg 78 at Figure 7.6.They specifically indicate that the shift in major axis was very critical to get the fit.In the following examples the couldn't get the fit:"Exemplary three non-fitting orbits. Example of 3 orbits with an error ≥ 5 σ corresponding to: (Left) the case of Western position, a fit with 3.3×106M point mass + 0.8×106M extended component (Middle) the case of Eastern position, a fit with 3.3×106M point mass + 0.4×106M extended component, and (Right) the case of Northern position, a fit with 2.7×106M point mass + 0.3×106M extended component."Therefore, it is clear that without changing the position of the Major axis and specifically assume that it moves on the red line, there is no fit.
I don't have to prove it. It is written by our scientists.So, how can we take an elliptical cycle and shift its major axis???
We know that our vantage point is not perpendicular to the plane of S2's orbit. But even if we try to place that elliptical cycle in space, there is no way to shift the major axis while we keep the shape of the elliptical cycle as is.I have tried to do it without success.
This by itself proves that based on kepler there is no fit between S2 and the SMBH.
Just after all those manipulations over manipulations they claim for a fit.Sorry this is incorrect.Why they so deeply insist for Fit???
It proves that S2 doesn't directly orbit around the SMBH.
That proves that there must be something between S2 and the SMBH.
In other words, S2 must orbit around some invisible object while that invisible object might orbit around the SMBH.
I call that invisible object a Virtual Host point - VHP.
I have never claimed that the VHP has Zero mass.It all based on Multi star system, as you have explained:
I will explain it later on how it really works in the galaxy, and how that system can set all the unique features of the spiral galaxy without any need for dark matter.
Anyhow, it seems to me that you support our scientists by all means.
So, what ever I might offer and show, you have already took a discussion to support the current incorrect ideas for good.Is it correct?
I still have no idea why the VHP idea was necessary for the whole idea of matter being created at the SMBH and moving outward.
It is stated:"Until now, it was thought that S0-2 might be a double star. Two stars orbiting each other would have complicated the upcoming gravity testBut a team of astronomers led by Devin Chu of Hilo, Hawaii – an astronomy grad student at UCLA – has found that S2 doesn’t have a companion"The question is: Why our scientists consider that there are two orbiting stars?
Could it be that they also have thought on a possibility that based on the real verifications, S2 should orbit around some other object as I was expecting?
As I was expecting:There is no need for any real companion star (or object). The VHP by itself can give a perfect explanation for what we see.
It is also stated:"[S2] orbits Sgr A* on an ellipse that takes about 15 years to complete. The diameter of its orbit is about 300 billion km [200 billion miles], which may sound like a lot, but we’re talking about a suppermassive black hole here! That’s close!And it gets closer. Because the orbit is an ellipse, the star drops down to a mere 18 billion km [11 billion miles] from the black hole, a positively terrifying close approach. That’s only four times farther from the black hole than Neptune is from our sun."I wonder if that information represents the S2 elliptical orbit cycle that we see.
It was stated that our vantage point is not perpendicular to the plane of S2's orbit.
So, what we see doesn't represent the real S2 orbital cycle.
It was also stated that the major axis had been shifted to the left.
Unfortunately till now I couldn't understand how the Major axis could shift to the left while we see that S2 cycle set a nice Symmetrical elliptical shape.
QuoteSo, what we see doesn't represent the real S2 orbital cycle.That we don't have a perpendicular vantage doesn't mean it isn't real. Venus's orbit (or that of any of the planets for that matter) hardly looks like an ellipse from our vantage, but it is in fact nearly circular. We very much can see its real orbital cycle without need for a perpendicular vantage.
OK. To be expected. It is precessing, even more so due to the relativistic component of its orbit. Even Earth does this.It isn't a nice symmetrical ellipse. You saw them trying to fit different curves to the data. None of them was exact. It is passing objects that deflect its path, as expected. But the axis shift is probably more from precession than it is from random deflections from non-orbiting masses.
2) A VHP by itself has no mass and cannot affect the path of a star. It is the mass of one or more companion objects that makes a star's path have a semi-regular deviation from a clean path. S2 does not have a clean path since it passes by many other objects during its 15 year circuit, but none of those objects orbit S2, and S2 does not orbit them.
You do not answer the question!What is the real Orbital cycle shape of S2???
What do you mean by: "We very much can see its real orbital cycle without need for a perpendicular vantage."
How can you set any sort of calculation on something that is almost correct?
The major axis shift is very dramatically.How can you compare it to Earth?
Our scientists have to find the center of mass based on the orbital cycle of S2 (by ignoring the SMBH) and then find how far is it from the SMBH.
Sorry - you try to offer a solution to a problem without any real calculation.
After all of our discussion, it seems that you have no clue what is the real meaning of the VHP.So, let me explain it again for you:The VHP is the center of mass for a star in a multi mega star systemEach star has a unique VHP.
So, the VHP is a virtual point which represents the center of mass of multi star system.
There is no real object there.But it is a virtual point in space which which is used as the center of mass for a specific star.
Therefore, each star in the galaxy (which is under a Multi star system) must have a unique VHP for itself.
Back to S2:S2 orbital cycle is directly affected by the nearby multi star system.
Therefore, S2 must orbit around its unique VHP, while this VHP might orbit around the center of the galaxy or the SMBH.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand my simple message?You can accept it or reject it.
How can we verify if S2 orbits around other objects?
When we normally discuss about a multi star system - we mainly think about two, three, four...or maximal 16 stars.
If that was the case for S2, than we could easily find the other stars in the Multi star system.However, in the center there are much more than few stars or even few thousands of stars.Therefore, each S stars that we see must orbit around a unique VHP, while this VHP orbits according to the Multi Mega star system.So, that multi mega star system is affected by all the nearby stars, by the SMBH and even by the 3KPC RING!!!
Yes, I do believe that this ring also has an important impact on the orbital cycles of the stars in the center.
Therefore, if we take in account all the gravities impacts we should find that S2 orbits perfectly around the impact of all the gravities and that there is no need for any dark matter.
Halo is a perfect example for the Multi mega star system:https://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-make-shocking-discovery-about-stars-around-the-milky-way/"These halo stars are grouped together in giant structures that orbit the center of our galaxy, above and below the flat disk of the Milky Way."So, what kind of force keeps them together? How many stars there are in those giant structures?
It is clear to me that they all group together due to internal gravity force.
So, based on multi mega star system (as halo stars), each star must orbit around all the other stars
In the same token, S2 orbits due to the impact of all the mass in the center - (Multi mega stars system or giant structures), while we will not be able to verify that it actually orbits around any specific stars.
We call those giant star structures as halo stars because they have ejected from the disc of the spiral arm.Actually, as long as they are in the disc, they must be connected to one of the spiral arms.
Let's look again at the Milky way diagram:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svgWe see clearly that at the end of each spiral arm there are many points. It looks as a broken chain.
Please look at the last chain in each arm.This last chain holds itself to the one in front by gravity force.
As long as it is connected to the arm, it is part of the arm, It stays at the galactic disc plane and it follows the orbital path of the spiral arm.
So, S2 which had been created at the core of the molecular cloud at the center of the galaxy must drift outwards over time.One day S2 will arrive to the same radius from the center as the solar system.
The bar is a known stellar nursery, but I don't understand the dynamics of the bar.
The big stars nearby (e.g. Betelgeuse) similarly could not have come from the center since they're far too young to have made the trip.
If they stay together, then yes, gravity seems a lot more plausible than rubber bands or something.
You're treating arms as objects, not as what they probably are, which is waves.
Each star may tend to stay with the group, but it may also be ejected by chance.
why S2 isn't getting any further away with each orbit.
QuoteWhat is the real Orbital cycle shape of S2??? Something approximated by an ellipse, about 970 AU long and around 450 wide. That's the actual shape, not what it looks like from here.
What is the real Orbital cycle shape of S2???
Please look at at slide pg. 18It is stated that the orbital inclination angle as viewed from the Earth of S2 is 45 degree. While after the correction to 90 degree we get the final results at the attached image.However, it is quite clear to any first year student that the SgrA* (SMBH) can't be used as the host for this orbital cycle. No way!!!
Now, please look at slide in pg 20.The calculated Periastron date is year 2002.25 + 0.05 = 2002.3The calculated Apastoron date is year 1994.62The full one orbital cycle Is:P = 15.4 Year.Based on that data, they have found the mass of the host should be (in pg 22)3.4 * 10^6 Sun Mass.
I fully agree with this calculation!
As I have stated, S2 does not orbit around the SMBH.S2 orbits around its VPH1 which orbits around VHP2 which orbits around the SMBH (assuming that there are no more stages in between).Therefore:VHP2 (of S2) = 3.4 * 10^6 Sun Mass.
Now, we have to find the exact relationship between VHP2 and SMBH.
First, based on Kepler
we have to find the perfect location of VHP2 in that S2 orbital cycle of 15.4 years.It is clear to me that it should be located high above the current location of the SMBH.
There is a solid prove for my explanation.
Please look at the following article:https://alchetron.com/S2-(star)#demohttps://alchetron.com/S2-(star)
This shift is a direct outcome of the orbital motion of VHP2 around the SMBH.
Please look again at the following image:http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
Hence, S2 will never ever close one full cycle. It moves forwards due to the orbital motion of VHP2 around the SMBH and set some sort of open loop.
QuoteAs I have stated, S2 does not orbit around the SMBH.S2 orbits around its VPH1 which orbits around VHP2 which orbits around the SMBH (assuming that there are no more stages in between).Therefore:VHP2 (of S2) = 3.4 * 10^6 Sun Mass.Therefore, if we take in account all the gravities impacts we should find that S2 orbits perfectly around the impact of all the gravities and that there is no need for any dark matter.You just posited a VHP2 of mass similar to SgrA, which is a serious boat load of dark matter. You are contradicting yourself.I think they would notice if S2 was orbiting a second object that massive, but you seem to have other ideas. How far away is VHP1 from this VHP2? What period?QuoteNow, we have to find the exact relationship between VHP2 and SMBH.They're nearly the same mass and should be orbiting each other. Other objects should be orbiting the combined mass of the two.
Take 3 equal masses distributed in a triangle of sides 3, 5, and 7. From that, you can find the center of mass of the three which is the same for all three of them. We can call this VHPc. In addition, each object X Y and Z has a sort of VHP that is halfway between the other two objects
The motion of none of the objects (I have not given their velocities) cannot be modeled by any number of tiered VHP's, at least not according to Newtonian physics.