[Halc]

So is there a model supplied by such open-minded thinking?  Trust me, such a thing would be warmly greeted if it worked.

Trust me.
There is a model that works by 100%.
However, I need your cooperation and good willing.

You don't need that at all if you have a good model that works, and not just a set of assertions that all things behave in a manner that they don't.  I see why you're denying the tidal forces and such.  It apparently conflicts with your assertions.

For just one moment try to forget all the wrong understanding/hypothetical ideas that we have about the galaxy (Including: Age of the Star/galaxy/Universe, dark matter/dark energy and so on).

We must forget all of Newton's laws as well.  Shall we go back to 'impetus'?
You've supplied no laws to replace those, so all I see are requirements for this dream model of yours, but no actual model that meets those requirements.

In the same token:
Every star in the galaxy must orbit around some host Point. It might be something that we see or something that we can't see. However, any star (at any size) must set a clean orbital cycle (in ellipse shape or a perfect cycle). If we can't see that host point, let's call it virtual host point.

This for instance violates Newton's laws, since F=GMm/rē doesn't work anymore.  Force actually goes down as distance from that host point decreases.  Sometimes it goes up.  Depends where you are.  That's what Newton's laws say anyway, but you seem to assert that these virtual host points have force of their own, not the objects themselves.  What makes some objects contribute to the force of a host point and other not?

 So, while the star orbits around that virtual host point, the host point orbits around the center of the galaxy. Therefore, we might think that the orbital cycle of a star around the galaxy is not clean.

Summery -
The orbital cycle around a virtual host point is a key element in my explanation.
Please try to accept this idea as is.

I can accept that, sure.

If you totally can't agree with that, you are more than welcome to prove it by mathematics.

On the contrary, you need to prove, with mathematics, that it works.  So far I've seen no model, just a list of requirements.

However, please don't tell a story why this idea isn't logical based on your our current understanding about the Galaxy
Agree?

No problem.  It seems so far not to defy its own rules, so not illogical.  Current understanding of the galaxy has been discarded, as requested.  But don't go quoting that understanding then.  That would be mathematically unsound.

If you have no objection - we will set the next element.

Have at it!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This for instance violates Newton's laws, since F=GMm/rē doesn't work anymore.  Force actually goes down as distance from that host point decreases.  Sometimes it goes up.  Depends where you are.  That's what Newton's laws say anyway, but you seem to assert that these virtual host points have force of their own, not the objects themselves.

The whole idea is based on Newton law!!!
I can easily prove it.
However, in order to prove it we must understand the following:

With regards to our Sun
Please look at the following motion of the solar system in the galaxy:
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/coplanarity_solar_system_and_galaxy.html
The broken gray line shows exactly the virtual host point of the Sun while it orbits around the galaxy.
So, the Sun sets a clean orbital cycle around its virtual host point. This host point is a direct outcome of the local mass gravity (Due to the nearby mass in the Orion spiral arm).
So, the total orbital motion of the Sun is 217 Km/sec however, it also moves locally upwards/downwards to the galactic disc lane at 5-7 km/sec while it moves inwards/outwards at 20 km/sec.
Each star in the spiral arm has a similar orbital motion. Therefore, when we look at the nearby stars we see the following:
http://www.basicknowledge101.com/photos/2015/perception-of-time-rotation-of-galaxy.png
We might think that they move randomly relative to each other, but in reality, each one orbits around its virtual host point, while all their host points stay together in the arm and set a nice orbital motion of about 217 Km/sec around the galaxy

What makes some objects contribute to the force of a host point and other not?

Well, each star gravity force is affected by all the stars in the galaxy (or even in the Universe). However, as gravity works locally, the main gravity force impact is due to all the nearby stars. Therefore, the stars gather together is spiral arms. Each virtual host point sets a gravity force with all the other virtual host points of the nearby stars. They actually hold each other while they set a very high orbital motion. Therefore, a spiral arm is THE key request for their orbital velocity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Second Element - Drifting outwards

All the stars/planets/Moons/ are drifting outwards from their host points.
In the same token each virtual host point drifts outwards from the center of the galaxy.
This element is key request for our understanding, although It is quite difficult to prove/disapprove it as we only have verified the Earth/moon and Sun/moon orbital system.
The main idea is that any orbital cycle set a spiral cycle (even if it is perfect cycle of ellipse).
This is the only issue which I think that Newton have missed in his formulas.
Newton didn't consider the impact of long time (Billion years).
He actually verified the forces at a limited time frame (years).
So, the Sun must drift outwards from the Center of the galaxy.
In the same token all the stars are drifting outwards from the center.
Even the new atoms in the accretion disc are drifting outwards.

There is no need for tidal to set a drifting outwards movement.
This is a normal mechanism of gravity.
That gives us the following important understanding: Nothing drifts inwards to the center of the galaxy.


Third Element - New Atom/Molecular creation at the center of the galaxy.
There is very powerful magnetic field around the accretion disc which prevents from any matter to drift inwards to the SMBH.
That proves that the accretion disc is actually excretion disc.
I have discussed this issue deeply in  the following thread:
What is needed to create new atoms in the Universe?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75261.40

So, new matter is created at the accretion disc and drift outwards.
As they get to the magnetic field around the accretion, they are boosted upwards at ultra high speed.
Then the new hot molecular clouds fall down to the disc lane and set the famous gas clouds that we can see from our location.
However, those hot new atoms/molecular in this gas cloud don't orbit directly any more around the SMBH.
From now on they orbit around a virtual center of mass in the gas cloud. While this virtual center of mass of the gas cloud orbits around the SMBH.
Therefore, if we look carefully at those gas clouds, we might see that the atoms/molecular orbit around the center of the gas cloud.

[Halc]

The whole idea is based on Newton law!!!

Nonsense.  You threw that out when you generalized a two-body problem property (nice clean orbits) to n-body problem, which has never been solved.  If some object wanders close to this host-point, it will not orbit it (at high speed since it is so close) as you seem to assert, but rather not accelerate much at all, as predicted by Newton.  Sum of the forces is a small value, so only a tiny acceleration towards that center of mass.  Only in the two body case is there guaranteed to be a mass there when you approach it, and the body will orbit at high speed as a low orbit thing does.

I can easily prove it.
However, in order to prove it we must understand the following:

With regards to our Sun
Please look at the following motion of the solar system in the galaxy:
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

Don't understand what that one is trying to depict.  It is a picture minus any description.

It shows the solar system trajectory as the straight line in the middle, with a star on it.  Then there is this nice clean blue helix that is the 'apparent motion' of the solar system.  Apparent to what if the middle line is the actual solar system?
It has some orthogonal arrows labeled with speeds, like they're velocity components of something, but not specified.

The broken gray line shows exactly the virtual host point of the Sun while it orbits around the galaxy.

It is labeled 'solar system', not 'virtual host'.  I think it is perhaps the linear mass of the galactic arm that we go around, not a point at all.  If it didn't attract like that, the arms would soon dissolve into a more uniform cloud.
The difference is easy to tell:  If it was an orbit, the inclination would not change.  If it is motion around the arm, it will always be on an axis parallel to the arm.  I think it is the latter, and that makes it not an orbit.  There is no virtual host point, which would give us a random permanent inclination.

Anyway, the 217 km/s in that picture is too much for the apparent mass of the galaxy.  If you're not discarding Newton, then the solar system is moving way too fast at this radius.  You've made no attempt to resolve that contradiction without positing more mass than what we can see, which you seem to find offensive.  The funny host-point thing doesn't change the 217 figure one bit.

So, the Sun sets a clean orbital cycle around its virtual host point. This host point is a direct outcome of the local mass gravity (Due to the nearby mass in the Orion spiral arm).

An arm isn't a host point, nor does it act like one.  But yes, the dynamics seem to work like that, yes.

Each star in the spiral arm has a similar orbital motion. Therefore, when we look at the nearby stars we see the following:
http://www.basicknowledge101.com/photos/2015/perception-of-time-rotation-of-galaxy.png[/quote]
Wonderful.  That shows us having the clean orbit and all the other stars moving randomly in non-clean directions, none of them having any net effect on us.

We might think that they move randomly relative to each other, but in reality, each one orbits around its virtual host point, while all their host points stay together in the arm and set a nice orbital motion of about 217 Km/sec around the galaxy

If they all moved around the line (not a point) this way, the motion would be less random than depicted, just like the planet motions are hardly random within our solar system.

What makes some objects contribute to the force of a host point and other not?

Well, each star gravity force is affected by all the stars in the galaxy (or even in the Universe). However, as gravity works locally, the main gravity force impact is due to all the nearby stars. Therefore, the stars gather together is spiral arms. Each virtual host point sets a gravity force with all the other virtual host points of the nearby stars.[/quote]How does a nearby star's host point differ from its own position?  Each has a different host point?  Of what would that be the center of mass?

They actually hold each other while they set a very high orbital motion. Therefore, a spiral arm is THE key request for their orbital velocity.

The spiral arm goes around a 217 km/s at this radius, which is in conflict with Newton's prediction for a galaxy with our apparent visible mass.

Going offline for a bit now and then over the holidays.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If they all moved around the line (not a point) this way, the motion would be less random than depicted, just like the planet motions are hardly random within our solar system.

Yes, that is perfectly correct.

An arm isn't a host point, nor does it act like one.  But yes, the dynamics seem to work like that, yes.

Thanks

The spiral arm goes around a 217 km/s at this radius, which is in conflict with Newton's prediction for a galaxy with our apparent visible mass.

No, there is no conflict.
We need to understand one key issue: Gravity works locally!!!

Please remember that the moon orbits around the earth, while the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is stronger more than double than the Earth/Moon gravity force. This by itself is enigma. I will explain the root for this orbital motion later on

So, the SMBH has no real impact on the Sun orbital velocity. This velocity is a direct outcome of local gravity. Hence, each section of the galaxy is affected by the local mass/gravity force.
I will explain/prove it later on.

How does a nearby star's host point differ from its own position?  Each has a different host point?  Of what would that be the center of mass?

Yes, each star has its own unique virtual host point. This issue will be clear after getting better understanding about the structure of spiral galaxy and how Newton gravity works at each section of the galaxy..

[Halc]

We need to understand one key issue: Gravity works locally!!!

Please remember that the moon orbits around the earth, while the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is stronger more than double than the Earth/Moon gravity force. This by itself is enigma.

Is it?  The moon accelerates more due to the sun than it does due to Earth.  At no time does it accelerate away from the sun, even when between the two.  When it is there, the moon accelerates away from Earth, just like Newton says it should.

So, the SMBH has no real impact on the Sun orbital velocity.

The sun 'orbits' the galaxy, not the SMBH.  The latter does have an impact, but nowhere near enough to give the solar system its speed.  Apparently not even the galaxy has enough.
Speed is approximated by GM/r where M is mass of the spherical thing orbited.  Plug in the mass of the SMBH into that, and you get a figure far lower.  But the galaxy is not a spherical mass, so orbital speed actually increases with radius at some ranges.

This velocity is a direct outcome of local gravity. Hence, each section of the galaxy is affected by the local mass/gravity force.

Local gravity causes that blue helix (the 6 and 20 km/sec deviations), not the 217 km/sec speed of the arm in general.  Something needs to accelerate that line to the side, bending it into a circle around the galaxy.  Local gravity cannot do that, since there would be no reaction force.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We need to understand one key issue: Gravity works locally!!!
Please remember that the moon orbits around the earth, while the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is stronger more than double than the Earth/Moon gravity force. This by itself is enigma.

Is it?  The moon accelerates more due to the sun than it does due to Earth.  At no time does it accelerate away from the sun, even when between the two.  When it is there, the moon accelerates away from Earth, just like Newton says it should.

Do you agree that the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is much stronger than Earth/Moon?
If so, How can we explain the idea that the moon had selected to orbit around the earth instead around the Sun while the Sun/Moon gravity is much stronger?
What Newton would say about it?

The sun 'orbits' the galaxy, not the SMBH.  The latter does have an impact, but nowhere near enough to give the solar system its speed.  Apparently not even the galaxy has enough.
Speed is approximated by GM/r where M is mass of the spherical thing orbited.  Plug in the mass of the SMBH into that, and you get a figure far lower.  But the galaxy is not a spherical mass, so orbital speed actually increases with radius at some ranges.

Yes, sure.
If we ignore how spiral galaxy really work, than yes, you are fully correct.
Hence, as our scientists ignore completely the real impact of spiral arms, and as they also ignore the great impact of local mass gravity, they have found that even the galaxy can't support the orbital velocity of the Sun. But this is a severe mistake.
How can we ignore the spiral shape of our galaxy?
How can we assume that stars are getting in and out and cross the spiral arms while they orbit around the center of the galaxy?
We are missing the whole idea of spiral shape and local mass gravity.
Our Sun is not there by itself. It is a severe mistake to verify the orbital velocity of the Sun based only of its mass.
Where is the impact of the local mass? Where is the impact of all the nearby stars???
Our sun orbits around a virtual host center. This virtual host center is there due to all the nearby masses. So it is some sort of long chain of gravity forces which holds each other while they all orbit around the galaxy.
We can see it quite clearly in the following diagram of the milky way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
Off course, it is only schematics. We don't see the bridges and branches between the arms.
But it shows the gravity force connection in each arm.
In order to get better understanding, let's look at the last point of mass at the Persues arm. This last point of mass has only the one in front it. So, It doesn't see the whole galaxy. The galaxy can't hold this point of mass in the orbital velocity by itself. (So you are fully correct in the following statement - "Apparently not even the galaxy has enough.")
Therefore, only the gravity force between this last Point of mass to the one in front, still holds it in the arm and keeps its orbital velocity.
In each point of mass there might be few thousands of stars.
Hence, each point of mass in this chain holds itself by gravity force with the one in front, while it also holds the one in the back.
Hence - Gravity Works Locally!!!
That is the Key element of spiral galaxy.
Once you understand that, you understand how spiral galaxy works.

[Halc]

Do you agree that the gravity force of the Sun/Moon is much stronger than Earth/Moon?
If so, How can we explain the idea that the moon had selected to orbit around the earth instead around the Sun while the Sun/Moon gravity is much stronger?

It orbits both of them actually.  Whether something orbits object X or not isn't just a function of the force that X puts on it.
This is part of the 3-body problem, which has no known general solution.

[Orbital] speed is approximated by GM/r where M is mass of the spherical thing orbited.  Plug in the mass of the SMBH into that, and you get a figure far lower.  But the galaxy is not a spherical mass, so orbital speed actually increases with radius at some ranges.

Yes, sure.
If we ignore how spiral galaxy really work, than yes, you are fully correct.

You described it the same way, with this host point orbiting the galaxy at the same speed, unexplained by the visible mass.

Hence, as our scientists ignore completely the real impact of spiral arms, and as they also ignore the great impact of local mass gravity, they have found that even the galaxy can't support the orbital velocity of the Sun. But this is a severe mistake.
How can we ignore the spiral shape of our galaxy?
How can we assume that stars are getting in and out and cross the spiral arms while they orbit around the center of the galaxy?
We are missing the whole idea of spiral shape and local mass gravity.
Our Sun is not there by itself. It is a severe mistake to verify the orbital velocity of the Sun based only of its mass.
Where is the impact of the local mass? Where is the impact of all the nearby stars???

Nobody ignores any of that, nor do they claim that the sun follows a clean orbit about the galaxy without that wiggle around the arms.

Our sun orbits around a virtual host center. This virtual host center is there due to all the nearby masses. So it is some sort of long chain of gravity forces which holds each other while they all orbit around the galaxy.

... at an unexplained speed still.  Your hypothesis made no attempt to explain that.

We can see it quite clearly in the following diagram of the milky way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg

That's a nice map.  Cool.  Hadn't seen one like that before.

In order to get better understanding, let's look at the last point of mass at the Persues arm. This last point of mass has only the one in front it. So, It doesn't see the whole galaxy. The galaxy can't hold this point of mass in the orbital velocity by itself. (So you are fully correct in the following statement - "Apparently not even the galaxy has enough.")
Therefore, only the gravity force between this last Point of mass to the one in front, still holds it in the arm and keeps its orbital velocity. [/quote]If that happened, the arms would contract into chunks instead of stretch into these pinwheel arms. If the mass in front of it played a role as you describe, it would be accelerating, not going fast.  Clockwise speed (as viewed in that diagram) is due to force towards the galaxy, not towards the stuff in front of it.  The 'one in front' contributes not at all to that.  Forces to the front would push that 'last point' outward, not forward, just as forward tidal forces make the moon orbit higher, not faster.
Anybody with familiarity of orbital mechanics knows this.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Our sun orbits around a virtual host center. This virtual host center is there due to all the nearby masses. So it is some sort of long chain of gravity forces which holds each other while they all orbit around the galaxy.

... at an unexplained speed still.  Your hypothesis made no attempt to explain that.

The explanation is quite simple and based on a normal "drifting outwards" activity in gravity.

Please look again at the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
Please try to focus at the Green spiral arm.
If we look directly from the Sun to the SMBH, we can see that it cross Green arm at 6KPC (let's call it star B) while if we look at the other side we can see that the green Arm starts from the edge of the Bar  (let's assume that the distance from the center is 3KPC and call it star A)
So, we have two points (or stars) on the same diameter line and on the same arm.
One point is at a distance of 3KPC and the other is at 6KPC.
We know that all the stars have almost the same velocity - V.
Hence, after time T, both will cross the same distance.
S = T * V
Both of them are drifting outwards while they orbit around the galaxy.
So, let's assume that S1 Represents the distance in the green spiral arm from Star A to Star B.
Therefore, both of them will have to cross the same distance = S1.
However, while Star A set 180 degree from the Bottom point (R=3KPC) to the Top (R=6KPC) , Star B will set only about 90 degree from Top point (R=6KPC) to the left point (R=9KPC).
That is a very simple explanation why all stars in the disc orbit at the same velocity while each one stay on the same arm and why we get the unique spiral shape of the arm.
Is it clear?

[andreasva]

Could it be that over time there is a change in the gravity force?

This is precisely what is happening over time, in my view. 

It's quite a lengthy theory, so I'll try to be brief.

The universe is infinite, not finite.  The Big Bang never happened.  We are not expanding, or accelerating.  Dark Matter is more than likely a myth.

To understand it, you have to start from 0, and work your way in.  Physics chose the middle, and is trying to work its way out simultaneously in opposite directions.  It's too complicated and confusing.  We got a lot wrong.

You also need to consider basic fundamental equality's in math, and how that applies to the universe. 

First, the whole of the universe can only be described with 3 values. 

0
ι1ι
∞

Looking at 0, it is exactly what it implies, nothing.  Should the universe ever become nothing, that's all it could ever be, because 0=0.  0 is a finite value.  It does not equal anything else but 0.  It cannot spontaneously become something else.  0≠1. Clearly we are not 0, because we exist.  I would also conclude, that the potential to be 0 is infinite, because 0, or absolute 0, is theoretically impossible.  Our existence is the empirical evidence that proves conclusively that 0 has never been, and never will be the state of the universe.  Should the universe ever reach a state of 0, it would reach a perfect equilibrium, and would remain that way forever and always. 

Our universe is, > 0

The next value for the universe would be 1, but in the context of the universe its value would be absolute.  The whole of the universe would be a continuous emptiness, void of all substance.  Like 0, 1 is a finite value.  1=1.  And like 0, if the universe ever achieved this state, it would remain that way forever and always.  Also like 0, it cannot spontaneously become something else.  1=1.  Once again, our existence is the empirical evidence that proved conclusively that ι1ι has never been a state of the universe. 

Our universe is, < ι1ι

These are basic fundamental equality's in math.  They don't change.  If they somehow did change, e=mc^2 would be meaningless.  Math wouldn't work.

Between 0 and 1, lies an infinite number of variables.  Or more to the point, an infinitely variable condition, which makes us an infinitely variable analog state.  We are analog.  The entire universe can be described in wave theory, which is analog.  We have always been in this state, because ∞ = ∞, and cannot be anything else.

Einstein defined half of the puzzle, but he was working from 1 to C.  Quantum mechanics is working on the other half,  from C to 0.  They are inherently different, but similar.  I'm not sure the variables directly translate though, so there is some incompatibility.  The universe is also infinite, not finite, which means the constants are also infinitely variable.  There are no physical constants, just virtual constants.  We're bound to C, so it all seems pretty stable.  We're really looking at the universe from 1 to C, in a finite manner, as Einstein defined.  However, the reality is slightly different, 0<C<1, in an infinite manner.   

The big bang is pseudoscience.  The big bang takes the sum total of the entire universe and compacts it into a singularity, removing physical properties of the universe in the process.  Gravity, gone, C gone.  space-time, gone.  They've created an imaginary state of energy, a singularity, with a value of 1, and then wrapped it in nothing, or 0.  The big bang essentially claims 0=1.  0 and 1 cannot coexist.  It's wrong.  Not too surprising given the original source.  It was developed with a preconceived notion of a beginning, where there is none.

The universe is founded on two basic directions, in and out.  It is a 1-dimensional trip, in a 3-dimensional universe.  We move 3-dimensionally towards 0, but it is a destination beyond reach.  Finite values are not physically possible in our universe.  We are more or less a digital representation of an underlying analog state.  No, we aren't holograms, although I can see where it may be applicable to some extent.

What's really happening in the universe is that we're moving inward, probably at a constant rate of -C, for a lack of better terminology.  Really, there's no explanation in physics for what I'm describing.  So excuse my explanations.

As we move inwards towards a smaller state, gravity weakens between distant galaxies, and they fall back.  The gap widens over time.  It looks like expansion and acceleration, but it's mass receding inward and away. 

In the early part of our existence, our region of space was dominated by matter, and was very close together.  Gravity was spread out, or diversified.  Localized effects were less pronounced.  As we (galaxies) drift apart, the effect of gravity from adjacent galaxies diminishes, while local gravity increases relative to the local mass within it.  Not sure increases is the right choice of wording.  More like, it becomes more locally concentrated or focused.  That effect is in a constant rise the further we recede from other galaxies.

In a spiral galaxy, our motion is not precisely circular.  We're literally spiraling inward towards the center, but we're also receding inwards at the same time, giving the illusion on constancy. 

I suspect our most recent upcoming effort to detect Dark Matter will fail. 

So, given your original statement above, absolutely.  Gravity changes over time.  It gradually becomes more locally focused as the gap between galaxies widens.   

Sorry for the quick explanation.  It's pretty rough, but I hope you can get the gist of it. 

And as always, I could be wrong.  I doubt it though. 

[Halc]

The explanation is quite simple and based on a normal "drifting outwards" activity in gravity.

I am unaware of any such normal outward drift.  I was hoping you would describe where the energy would come from to do that.

Please look again at the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
Please try to focus at the Green spiral arm.
If we look directly from the Sun to the SMBH, we can see that it cross Green arm at 6KPC (let's call it star B) while if we look at the other side we can see that the green Arm starts from the edge of the Bar  (let's assume that the distance from the center is 3KPC and call it star A)
So, we have two points (or stars) on the same diameter line and on the same arm.
One point is at a distance of 3KPC and the other is at 6KPC.

OK, I know where A and B are.

We know that all the stars have almost the same velocity - V.

Sort of....   We're pretty slow actually (~217).  Things further out have been measured at 260.  S2 has quite variable speed, but has been clocked at over 30x our speed.  So we don't 'know' that all stars have almost the same speed.  Clearly they don't.
Still, on average, this is more true than Kepler's 3rd law would predict: That things 4 times as far out will move at half the speed.  That law only works for single primary masses like our sun, and not distributed masses like the disk that is our galaxy.

Hence, after time T, both will cross the same distance.

If they're moving at the same speed, yes.
If A is going at the same speed as B, it will go around twice for every lap made by B since it follows a path of half the length.

Both of them are drifting outwards while they orbit around the galaxy.

So you assert, but nothing you've said supports that.  It would require energy, and you need to explain the source of that energy.

So, let's assume that S1 Represents the distance in the green spiral arm from Star A to Star B

They are separated by about 9 KPC, linearly.  Along the curved green line of that arm, it is more like 14KPC.  So S1 is currently about 14KPS.

Therefore, both of them will have to cross the same distance = S1.

This makes no sense.  The arms are not stationary, and the stars don't travel along the arms.  Both A and B take essentially circular paths around the galaxy.  If they move at the same speed, then A takes half the time to go around since it has a shorter path.  Nothing traverses the green path from A to B or from B to A.

However, while Star A set 180 degree from the Bottom point (R=3KPC) to the Top (R=6KPC) , Star B will set only about 90 degree from Top point (R=6KPC) to the left point (R=9KPC).

I think you have A and B moving outward, but no force has been identified that would justify that assertion.  'A' ends up at top at 3KPC and in the same time, B ends up on the right point at 6KPC, assuming they move at the same speed.  That would have the effect of stretching the green line.  Things move clockwise in that picture remember.  You seem to be under the impression that things go the other way.

That is a very simple explanation why all stars in the disc orbit at the same velocity while each one stay on the same arm and why we get the unique spiral shape of the arm.
Is it clear?

Clear, but quite wrong.  No energy to explain the outward motion, and you have everything moving backwards.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I am unaware of any such normal outward drift.  I was hoping you would describe where the energy would come from to do that.

There is no need for extra energy in order to set the drifting outwards activity.
This is a normal outcome of "Gravity Friction".
We know that there is a friction at almost any activity.
Somehow, we assume that there is no friction in gravity.
We had long discussion about this issue.
You call it "Tidal friction" and I call it "Gravity friction".
You think that there are moons that drifts inwards and I claim that all the moons drifts outwards due to Gravity friction.

Both of them are drifting outwards while they orbit around the galaxy.

So you assert, but nothing you've said supports that.  It would require energy, and you need to explain the source of that energy.

As I have stated, all the stars drifts outwards due to gravity friction. So, they actually losing energy instead of gaining energy.
Let's set a simple calculation:
F = G M m / r^2
It is clear that as we increase the radius we decrease the gravity force and vice versa.
I can promise you that all the moons which you think that are drifting inwards - all of them are drifting outwards!!!
In any case, as we can't prove this issue, there is no need to argue about it.
We have agreed that we do not agree on this issue.

I think you have A and B moving outward, but no force has been identified that would justify that assertion.  'A' ends up at top at 3KPC and in the same time, B ends up on the right point at 6KPC, assuming they move at the same speed.  That would have the effect of stretching the green line.  Things move clockwise in that picture remember.  You seem to be under the impression that things go the other way.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.
I have tried to explain the basic idea of velocity adjustment while we freeze the spiral stracture.
In reality it is much more complex.
There are several elements to consider.
1. The location of the star. Is it in the Arm, in the ring, in the bulge, in the bar or outside the disc.
Currently, we only focus on the spiral arm. Starting from the ring to the last edge of the arm – (in the galactic disc). Therefore S2 isn't relevant to our current discussion. I will discuss about it later on.
2. The orbital velocity of the virtual host point of the star (at the arm) - V1
So, yes, all the stars orbit in clockwise direction (in the diagram). However, in order to keep a similar velocity at any distance (we will discuss later on about the differences in the velocities), they actually move outwards and backwards in the spiral arm. This is very critical point and I'm not sure that my explanation is fully clear.
So, the whole idea is that as a star is located outwards from the ring, we would expect it to have a faster orbital velocity (if it was a rigid disc), However, as a star drifts outwards it also set a backwards movement. This movement keeps the star in the arm while it orbits at a similar velocity as a star that is located closer to the center.
Please think about it and let me know if the point is clear to you.
3. The velocity of the star around its host point - V2
A star which is located close to the center has a shorter radius to its virtual host point. This radius increases over time due to gravity friction. Therefore, the orbital velocity of star around its virtual host point is faster when a star is located (in the arm) inwards to the galactic center and of course it is slower when a star is located further away from the center.
4. Measured orbital velocity.
The Orbital velocity of the virtual host point (V1)+ its orbital velocity around its host point (V2) sets the total orbital velocity of a star. so, if  V1 and V2 are in the same direction, the total orbital speed that we might see is V1 + v2. However, When they move in the opposite directions we see V1 - V2.
Therefore, when we measure the orbital velocity of stars we might find some variations in the orbital velocities even at the same radius although their real Virtual host point velocity is identical.
In the same token the Virtual host point of all our nearby stars might have exactly the same V1 orbital velocity. However, due to V2 we see them moving in different directions

Sort of....   We're pretty slow actually (~217).  Things further out have been measured at 260.

Yes, that is very normal.
At the edge of the arm (remember the last green point of mass at the green arm), the orbital velocity gets to its maximal pick. The Gravity force can't hold it for long time. Therefore, after some time this point of mass has to be disconnected from the arm and drifts outwards from the galactic disc. (I will discuss about that activity later on)


 

[Halc]

There is no need for extra energy in order to set the drifting outwards activity.

Then you violate Newton's conservation laws.  You are asserting magic.  An object further away from a gravity well has more energy than one deeper in.  There is no normal drift to a higher energy state.  A force is required to do it, and you've not identified that force.

This is a normal outcome of "Gravity Friction".
We know that there is a friction at almost any activity.

There is no such thing as gravitational friction.  There is physical friction, with two objects rubbing, changing kinetic energy into heat.  There is also EM friction like how they stop railroad trains, which doesn't involve physical contact, which would wear out the parts in perhaps one day.  The result is the same: heat, and loss of kinetic energy.  You've described an increase of energy that comes from nowhere by magic.  Friction creates heat.  Tidal friction is between water and the ocean floor, and it results in heating of the water.  There is no friction between the moon and Earth since the two are separated by space.

Somehow, we assume that there is no friction in gravity.

High gravitational acceleration of massive objects radiates energy away in the form of gravitational waves.  That is a form of gravitational friction.  The Earth going around the sun loses energy at a rate of I think ~200 watts in this manner.  The result of this tiny friction causes an immeasurable loss of orbital radius, not an increase.  So yes, there is gravitational friction of a sort, but it has the effect of reducing radius, not increasing it.

We had long discussion about this issue.
You call it "Tidal friction" and I call it "Gravity friction".

Tidal friction slows the spin of Earth.  It is between water and the ocean floor, and all that friction energy is lost to heat.  The energy/momentum transferred to the moon is not from friction.  The energy comes from the angular energy of Earth.  You've identified no such source of energy that accounts for stars gaining potential energy by moving out of the gravitational well.

You think that there are moons that drifts inwards and I claim that all the moons drifts outwards due to Gravity friction.

Yes, you claim that, despite the violation of Newton's laws.  Physics doesn't work by making self-contradictory claims, especially ones that make assertions contrary to empirical observation.

As I have stated, all the stars drifts outwards due to gravity friction. So, they actually losing energy instead of gaining energy.
Let's set a simple calculation:
F = G M m / r^2
It is clear that as we increase the radius we decrease the gravity force and vice versa.

You seem to be equating force with energy.  Do you know the difference?

I can promise you that all the moons which you think that are drifting inwards - all of them are drifting outwards!!!
In any case, as we can't prove this issue, there is no need to argue about it.

The people that measure the opposite effect will appreciate your promise.  Apparently their very real measurements to the contrary don't count as proof that your assertion is quite wrong.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.
I have tried to explain the basic idea of velocity adjustment while we freeze the spiral stracture.
In reality it is much more complex.
There are several elements to consider.
1. The location of the star. Is it in the Arm, in the ring, in the bulge, in the bar or outside the disc.
Currently, we only focus on the spiral arm. Starting from the ring to the last edge of the arm – (in the galactic disc). Therefore S2 isn't relevant to our current discussion. I will discuss about it later on.
2. The orbital velocity of the virtual host point of the star (at the arm) - V1
So, yes, all the stars orbit in clockwise direction (in the diagram). However, in order to keep a similar velocity at any distance (we will discuss later on about the differences in the velocities), they actually move outwards and backwards in the spiral arm. This is very critical point and I'm not sure that my explanation is fully clear.

That they do, as does Earth in its orbit, but the net effect is an average radius that doesn't change absent any force applying a net forward force which would account for the increase of energy.  That force would need a reaction force decreasing the energy of something else, per Newton's 3rd law.  If you don't identify that equal and opposite reaction, then your drift assertion violates Newtonian law.  This host point adds zero net force since it is sometimes in one direction, and sometimes in the opposite direction.  That adds up to a wiggle with no net change in speed or radius.

You continuously assert force by magic, without reaction.  Newton would not agree with that.

So, the whole idea is that as a star is located outwards from the ring, we would expect it to have a faster orbital velocity (if it was a rigid disc), However, as a star drifts outwards it also set a backwards movement. This movement keeps the star in the arm while it orbits at a similar velocity as a star that is located closer to the center.
Please think about it and let me know if the point is clear to you.

The disk of the galaxy is anything but rigid.  All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.  This is not the case of a rigid object, which would be able to spin any any number of different angular rates and still keep its components at some fixed radius.
So I don't really care how stars would move if the galaxy was a rigid disk, since it isn't one.  No, I don't really get what you're trying to convey above.  If a star stays near its arm, it is because the nearby mass of the arm attracts it.

3. The velocity of the star around its host point - V2
A star which is located close to the center has a shorter radius to its virtual host point. This radius increases over time due to gravity friction. Therefore, the orbital velocity of star around its virtual host point is faster when a star is located (in the arm) inwards to the galactic center and of course it is slower when a star is located further away from the center.

Assuming there is such a host point, you discard Newtonian mechanics with the drifting assertion, and then assert that both gravitational potential energy (from moving away from the gravity source) and kinetic energy (from asserted greater orbit velocity out there) appear as from nowhere, totally violating energy conservation laws.  Oh yes, and even more energy from heat from 'gravitational friction'.  My, but you do pull a lot of energy from nowhere.

Let's see, you also assert that orbital velocity about the host point is a function of the distance of that star or host point from the galactic center, which makes no sense.  The galaxy affects speed around the galaxy, not speed around the host point.  The speed around the host point has no obvious formula since you've not supplied one.  Kepler's laws are of no use here since you're not describing a Kepler orbit.

4. Measured orbital velocity.
The Orbital velocity of the virtual host point (V1)+ its orbital velocity around its host point (V2) sets the total orbital velocity of a star.

We have a second host point now?  That's fine, but you just now introduced this.  Before you said that the one host point orbited the galaxy as your picture depicted.

so, if  V1 and V2 are in the same direction, the total orbital speed that we might see is V1 + v2. However, When they move in the opposite directions we see V1 - V2.

V usually refers to velocity, not speed, in which case it is always V1 + V2.  This simplifies the math considerably.

Therefore, when we measure the orbital velocity of stars we might find some variations in the orbital velocities even at the same radius although their real Virtual host point velocity is identical.

Right.

Sort of....   We're pretty slow actually (~217).  Things further out have been measured at 260.

Yes, that is very normal.
At the edge of the arm (remember the last green point of mass at the green arm), the orbital velocity gets to its maximal pick.

The first one near the core also moves much faster, even than the 260 figure.  I don't have numbers since I don't know specific objects.  The 217 figure for our speed is just the length of a circle of 10KPS radius divided by the ~200 million years it takes for us to go around one lap.  From this speed the acceleration can be computed needed to keep our host point on that circular path, and from that acceleration the mass required to account for that acceleration can be computed.  Your host point idea doesn't change that acceleration at all, so you (in denial of additional mass) have failed to explain that acceleration.  Nothing you propose explains the force necessary for the observed acceleration.  All I see is assertions that are inconsistent with laws that have been known for many centuries.

The Gravity force can't hold it for long time. Therefore, after some time this point of mass has to be disconnected from the arm and drifts outwards from the galactic disc. (I will discuss about that activity later on)

If the arm was moving too fast, it would not be at the radius from the galaxy it is now.  We would already be further out.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.

If that is the case, than how could it be that we get the spiral shape from that random orbital activity?
How many spiral shape you can get due to this random orbital activity? Is it 0.000...0001 preset or 0.0..1 present?
Do you know that: "Spiral galaxies make up roughly 72 percent of the galaxies that scientists have observed, according to a 2010 Hubble Space Telescope survey"
https://www.space.com/22382-spiral-galaxy.html
So, do you really believe that if "All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them", they can set a spiral shape in 72 percent of the galaxies that scientists have observed???
If we see that 72% of the galaxies are spiral, don't you think that it couldn't be due to random phenomenon?
So how can we explain that incredible number of spiral galaxies?
How can we ignore the impact of the whole spiral galaxy shape?

[Halc]

All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.

If that is the case, than how could it be that we get the spiral shape from that random orbital activity?
How many spiral shape you can get due to this random orbital activity?

I never suggested it was random.  Everything moves as the result of net forces on them, exactly as Newton says it should.  Random movement would violate that.  Mass attracts other mass, so spinning material apparently tends to gather into arm.  Perhaps our solar system formed arms before each arm stabilized into rings and then planets.  I don't know.  I'm not an expert.  The spiral arms seem to be a fairly stable structure since many (but not all) semi-large galaxies of similar age seem to have them.

So, do you really believe that if "All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them", they can set a spiral shape in 72 percent of the galaxies that scientists have observed???

Yes, exactly.  The spirals are perhaps not stable in the long run (since they obviously must stretch out if the inside material goes around more times than the outside stuff).  Maybe pairs of stretched arms combine into one when they get thin enough.  Our own arm seems a weak remnant of such an old arm.  Perhaps the arms form as the result of a relatively recent cannibalism of a nearby galaxy.  As I said, I'm no expert, so am just suggesting possible ways that such arms seem stable enough to be prevalent.

If we see that 72% of the galaxies are spiral, don't you think that it couldn't be due to random phenomenon?

Clearly not.  Probably more due to gravitational effects, not random ones.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc

In one hand you claim:

Mass attracts other mass, so spinning material apparently tends to gather into arm. 

However, this is exactly what I say. Mass attracts other mass.
So, mass gravity works locally. Therefore, the mass in the Spiral arms attracts all the stars in the Arm.
Therefore, do you agree that all the stars in the Arm are directly affected by the gravity force of the Arm?

But you have stated:

All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.

How could it be that in one hand you claim that - Mass attracts other mass in spiral arms, while on the other hand you claim - All objects are disconnected?
Do you agree that there is a contradiction?

Can you please explain how the following Milky way spiral galaxy had been formed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
Please explain the following:
1. Bulge:
Why it has a ball shape? Why there is no disc shape in the Bulge
2. Bar:
What is the source for that bar shape?
3. Ring
What is the resone for the Ring shape? Why it has a disc Shape instead of ball shape as we see in the Bulge?
What is the gravity impact of the Ring? Why the ring is so narrow? Why the ring doesn't continue all the way to the far end of the galaxy?
4. Spiral arm
How could it be that after the ring we see spiral arm?
Please explain why the spiral arms had been set in a flat disc and why it has this unique shape?
5. End of the Disc shape.
Why at some point, the spiral arm shape is ended? Why it doesn't last longer?
How could it be that at some point the Dark matter can't hold the stars in the disc?
Why after the far end edge of the spiral arms we see stars far above and below the galactic disc?

Please look at the following orbital velocity:
http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/courbe_rot_voie-lactee.jpg
http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/matiere_noire_pas_si_noire_uk.htm
How could it be that our scientists don't try to match between the spiral structure to the measured velocity???
Can you please explain why we see that measured velocity at each segment of the galaxy?

Perhaps our solar system formed arms before each arm stabilized into rings and then planets.  I don't know.  I'm not an expert.  The spiral arms seem to be a fairly stable structure since many (but not all) semi-large galaxies of similar age seem to have them.

If our scientists don't know the answers for some questions, why do you take it for granted that no one can find the real answer for Spiral galaxy enigma?
Instead of focusing on the negative aspects, why don't you help me to develop the positive ideas about the galaxy?

[Halc]

Mass attracts other mass.
So, mass gravity works locally. Therefore, the mass in the Spiral arms attracts all the stars in the Arm.
Therefore, do you agree that all the stars in the Arm are directly affected by the gravity force of the Arm?

Sure, but not just the mass of the arm.  All stars are directly affected by all mass.  The nearby portions of our own arm certainly have more effect than the distant parts, and the nearby parts of other arms have more effect than distant parts of our own arm.  Acceleration of the sun or a soap bubble in space can be given by a = ∑GM/rē for every object everywhere, which means the sum of acceleration due to each and every object everywhere, not just the objects in our own galactic arm, which is a pretty pathetic arm actually, not one of the main ones.

I agree to most of what you say, but gravity does not work locally.  I cannot think of any object however non-local that has mass but does not exert any gravitational influence on me.

But you have stated:

All objects are disconnected and thus move and accelerate exactly according to the net force vectors acting on each of them.

How could it be that in one hand you claim that - Mass attracts other mass in spiral arms, while on the other hand you claim - All objects are disconnected?

Disconnected as in not attached to each other via steel cables or other means by which their trajectories might be different than what gravitational forces predict.  Two rocks attached with a string trace a different path than the same two disconnected rocks that are influenced only via their mutual gravity.

Can you please explain how the following Milky way spiral galaxy had been formed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg

The site would explain it better than me reading the site and deciding how much of it is known and how much is conjecture.  The link is a picture of the current configuration, and gives zero information as to the formation of that configuration.

Please explain the following:
1. Bulge:
Why it has a ball shape? Why there is no disc shape in the Bulge

I think the bulge is the halo, which is mostly made of objects that have been displaced from their normal paths by close encounters with significant gravitational sources, thus putting them on random trajectories that take them out of the plane of the disk.

2. Bar:
What is the source for that bar shape?

No clue.  I didn't read that far.  I think you need to go further than the wiki summary to get a good explanation of the current thinking behind that.

3. Ring
What is the resone for the Ring shape? Why it has a disc Shape instead of ball shape as we see in the Bulge?

Again, I don't claim to have better answers than what you see on the site.  It is not a ball because it is not displaced, but normal matter that has been pulled into disk shape as does any cloud of material that rotates and condenses via mutual gravitational attraction.  A galaxy in many ways is formed similar to a solar system, but in massive slow motion, and thus far greater local gravitational effects.  Unlike a typical solar system, there is no dominant mass that cleans up the orbit of everything else.  A SMBH that is on the order of 1% of the total mass hardly seems up to the task.

What is the gravity impact of the Ring? Why the ring is so narrow? Why the ring doesn't continue all the way to the far end of the galaxy?

The impact to us is negligible as is all mass further out and not nearby.  It has impact to any material more distant than the ring since it is part of the mass around which that material orbits.

4. Spiral arm
How could it be that after the ring we see spiral arm?

The picture doesn't show the ring.  The site mentions it, and puts it around 50 KPCS, and the furthest arm in the picture seems to be about a third that distant, so I don't see an arm beyond the ring.

Please explain why the spiral arms had been set in a flat disc and why it has this unique shape?

Any rotating collection of loose material under mutual attraction is going to flatten into a disk, just like any gas cloud that collects into a solar system.  Interaction friction slows much of motion outside of the plane of rotation, but does not decrease the angular momentum of the collection.

5. End of the Disc shape.
Why at some point, the spiral arm shape is ended? Why it doesn't last longer?

The arms must be stretched as the inside points go around more often than the outside ones, so it has to get homogeneous after a while, but then again, arms can merge with larger neighbors as ours is doing, so maybe that explains how the arms persist even after all the laps we've taken.  I don't claim to know.

How could it be that at some point the Dark matter can't hold the stars in the disc?

Who claims that?

Why after the far end edge of the spiral arms we see stars far above and below the galactic disc?

Who knows?  New gas probably gets pulled in by the galaxy, so surely there is material out there to form stars.  A lot of the answer would be told by the trajectory of these outlier stars.  Stuff further out has had far less forces that tend to pull the material into a disk, just like our solar system's outer material like the Oort cloud is not arranged as a disk.

Please look at the following orbital velocity:
http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/courbe_rot_voie-lactee.jpg
http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/matiere_noire_pas_si_noire_uk.htm
How could it be that our scientists don't try to match between the spiral structure to the measured velocity???

Don't know what you mean here.  Nothing on that chart is labeled 'spiral structure'.

Can you please explain why we see that measured velocity at each segment of the galaxy?

Don't know what it depicts.  It shows the disk at this radius moving at about 160 km/s, quite a bit slower than the 217 figure quoted in earlier places you've linked.  It shows apparently stars moving slower than free gas, possibly because a lot of the gas is higher speed due to being ejected in explosions?  Just a guess there.

If our scientists don't know the answers for some questions, why do you take it for granted that no one can find the real answer for Spiral galaxy enigma?
Instead of focusing on the negative aspects, why don't you help me to develop the positive ideas about the galaxy?

You've not presented any alternative explanations.   You just assert things that are in contradiction with the observed accelerations.  The scientists at least have theories that explain the observed accelerations, however distasteful you find those theories.  There has been no mathematics to back the sort of things you've been asserting, so it is not even wrong.

[Halc]

Please look at the following orbital velocity:
http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/matiere_noire_pas_si_noire_uk.htm

That chart is poorly described.  The vertical axis is speed, not mass, yet the text says:
"This suggests the existence of an invisible heavy matter, the black matter, distributed in a halo surrounding galaxies, and representative more than 90% of the total mass of the galaxy. The graph opposite shows that."
Well the graph doesn't show mass at all, just speed.
It appears that it doesn't actually show measured speed of gas, stars, 'bulb' and dark matter, but rather speed of any due to the mass of those various things.  So actual speed is that unlabeled line at the top (217 for us), and that line is the sum of the speed effects of the various components identified in the lines below.

If you take away the dark matter, the sum of the remaining parts don't add up to the line at the top, and the observed speed is incompatible with the known mass.  This is why your assertions don't work.  You're not replacing the effect of the dark matter with something else.  These host-points of yours have no effect since speed around the galaxy of a host point is no different than the speed of any other object like a dead mouse or something.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Mass attracts other mass.
So, mass gravity works locally. Therefore, the mass in the Spiral arms attracts all the stars in the Arm.
Therefore, do you agree that all the stars in the Arm are directly affected by the gravity force of the Arm?

Sure, but not just the mass of the arm.  All stars are directly affected by all mass.  The nearby portions of our own arm certainly have more effect than the distant parts, and the nearby parts of other arms have more effect than distant parts of our own arm.  Acceleration of the sun or a soap bubble in space can be given by a = ∑GM/rē for every object everywhere, which means the sum of acceleration due to each and every object everywhere, not just the objects in our own galactic arm, which is a pretty pathetic arm actually, not one of the main ones.

I agree to most of what you say, but gravity does not work locally.  I cannot think of any object however non-local that has mass but does not exert any gravitational influence on me.

Please look at the following article:
https://www.space.com/19915-milky-way-galaxy.html
"Spiral arms are like traffic jams in that the gas and stars crowd together and move more slowly in the arms. As material passes through the dense spiral arms, it is compressed and this triggers more star formation," said Camargo.

So, our scientists belive that stars don't stay at spiral Arms but they just move slower at the arms.
Therefore, all the stars actually cross the arms while they orbit around the galaxy.

Based on this idea, the Sun has to cross all the arms several times - as the orbital velocity of the Sun is faster than the orbital velocity of the Arm.
However, in the arm, the orbital velocity is lower than outside the arm.
So, based on this unrealistic idea, once we are outside the arm, we should speed up.

It is stated:
"The solar system travels at an average speed of 515,000 mph (828,000 km/h). Even at this rapid speed, the solar system would take about 230 million years to travel all the way around the Milky Way."
So, what is the expected velocity outside the arm?
How could it be that we get a spiral shape due to this explanation?
Do you think that Newton would accept the idea of several orbital velocities changing per one cycle?
How can we agree with this totally unrealistic idea about spiral arms and changing orbital velocities?

[Halc]

Please look at the following article:
https://www.space.com/19915-milky-way-galaxy.html
"Spiral arms are like traffic jams in that the gas and stars crowd together and move more slowly in the arms. As material passes through the dense spiral arms, it is compressed and this triggers more star formation," said Camargo.

So, our scientists belive that stars don't stay at spiral Arms but they just move slower at the arms.
Therefore, all the stars actually cross the arms while they orbit around the galaxy.

The article didn't say that.  It explains that the stuff moving through the arms is slowed by friction, and thus tends to more or less stay in the arms.  That seems to be why there are arms and not a homogeneous fog without structure.
Nothing in that article suggests that all stars do a certain thing.
The article says that stars and gas are slowed (by friction) to a lower speed relative to the arm, not relative to the galaxy.  The whole galaxy moves at about 217 km/sec at this radius, and things moving at a different speed tend to match the local speed due to collisions with the thick material.

Based on this idea, the Sun has to cross all the arms several times - as the orbital velocity of the Sun is faster than the orbital velocity of the Arm.

If the sun orbital velocity around the galaxy was faster than the arm, the sun would move permanently away from the galaxy and the arm, moving perhaps closer to the next arm out.  But both are going at about 217 km/sec around the galaxy.  Yes, the sun is not centered on its arm, and thus moves in a sort of orbit around that mass, but that doesn't make the sun faster around the galaxy than the arm.

However, in the arm, the orbital velocity is lower than outside the arm.
So, based on this unrealistic idea, once we are outside the arm, we should speed up.

You seem to be making up nonsense facts.  If you move away from mass, your speed goes down, just like the speed of a ball slows if you throw it upward.  The idea is indeed unrealistic.  The article suggests no such thing.

It is stated:
"The solar system travels at an average speed of 515,000 mph (828,000 km/h). Even at this rapid speed, the solar system would take about 230 million years to travel all the way around the Milky Way."
So, what is the expected velocity outside the arm?

That is orbital speed around the galaxy, and you showed a graph of that vs radius.  The galactic orbital speed outside the arm is almost constant nearby, so it will be the same outside of the arm.
The first quote you give is speed relative to the arm material (for material passing through it say from the side).  That relative speed would be slowed due to the friction.

Do you think that Newton would accept the idea of several orbital velocities changing per one cycle?

If you orbit 6 things, you have 6 orbital speeds, any of which can change due to changes in distance or friction forces or something.  The moon orbits Earth, the sun, the arm, the galaxy, and probably other things, all with different speeds and radii.  Most of those speeds are fairly constant over the period of one cycle, but not completely.

How can we agree with this totally unrealistic idea about spiral arms and changing orbital velocities?

I didn't see any suggestion of changing orbital velocities of galactic arms.  The speeds are quite stable.