[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's time for me to present my model.
However, the two basic elements are:
1. There is a friction also in gravity force. This friction reduces the gravity force over time. The only way to reduce the gravity force of an object is by increasing its radius.

Friction requires physical contact and has an effect on momentum, and has nothing to do with gravitational force.  So you need to explain what you mean by that.

That is incorrect.
Based on the current idea of our scientists, there is tidal friction.
In Tidal friction there is no direct contact or friction between the Earth and the moon, however, somehow it cause the Moon to increase its orbital radius.
It shows that even our scientists believe that without direct contact there is a friction.
Therefore in orbital system there is a friction even without a direct contact.

Gravitational force is described by GMm/r˛, and that has no term for friction or for time.

I agree
At any given moment the formula for gravity force is as follow:
F=GMm/r˛
However, Newton didn't take in his account the impact of time frame.
Somehow, our scientists believe that this force can last forever. This is incorrect.
I do believe that even gravity force must be reduced over time (While there is no change in the mass).
You can call it "Tidal friction", "Gravity friction" or "Gravity force reduced over time". The name of that phenomenon is not relevant.
The key idea is that ALL the planets and ALL the moons in the solar system are drifting outwards over time.
You would never ever find even one planet or one moon in the solar system that drifts inwards.
If we could set the measurements - we should find that ALL of them are drifting outwards over time.
Therefore, after each orbit, the orbital object must shifts/drifts outwards. It can be just few Pico millimeter per cycle or few Km per cycle - but it is there and it is real.
So, orbital cycle is spiral by definition.
This is something that our scientists had missed.
We had long discussion on that issue. So, please don't start all over again with the hypothetical idea why it isn't realistic.
I'm ready to accept your claim - If you can prove (only by real measurements) that there is even one moon or planet that drifts inwards. If you can't prove that there is a moon or planet in a solar system that drifts inwards, you can't contradict this key element phenomena in orbital system.

2. All the stars in the galaxy must orbit around some virtual host (I will explain it later on).

You've attempted explanation of this at length.  Watch out for Newton's third law, because this particular notion seems to violate it heavily.

Please look again at the following diagram.
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
We see clearly that the sun orbits around some virtual host point, while this host point orbits around the galaxy (Gray Line)
We have also discussed this issue. So, I don't see a value to start all over again.

[Halc]

It's time for me to present my model.
However, the two basic elements are:
1. There is a friction also in gravity force. This friction reduces the gravity force over time. The only way to reduce the gravity force of an object is by increasing its radius.

Friction requires physical contact and has an effect on momentum, and has nothing to do with gravitational force.  So you need to explain what you mean by that.

That is incorrect.
Based on the current idea of our scientists, there is tidal friction.
...
It shows that even our scientists believe that without direct contact there is a friction.

The friction is mostly between water and the sea floor, which is direct physical contact, and is where all the heat is generated.

In Tidal friction there is no direct contact or friction between the Earth and the moon, however, somehow it cause the Moon to increase its orbital radius.
...
Therefore in orbital system there is a friction even without a direct contact.

A fact that you have repeatedly denied in prior posts, but here you are pushing gravitational friction.  What moves the moon to a higher orbit is a positive gravitational force vector.  There is no friction in this.  The moon does not heat up, only the Earth where the friction with the water takes place.

At any given moment the formula for gravity force is as follow:
F=GMm/r˛
However, Newton didn't take in his account the impact of time frame.
Somehow, our scientists believe that this force can last forever. This is incorrect.

If you mean that they believe that the force will not change over time when none of the variables (M,m,r) change, then I agree with them.  If you're saying something else, then I need a reference for this claim.

There are theories that speed of light was different in the past, and this affects a lot of 'constants', G possibly being one of them.
If your nonexistent model involves a significant change in recent time, you are rewriting physics.

I do believe that even gravity force must be reduced over time (While there is no change in the mass).

Yea, like that.  My point exactly.

You can call it "Tidal friction", "Gravity friction" or "Gravity force reduced over time". The name of that phenomenon is not relevant.

It is entirely relevant because these are quite different theories and they make different predictions.
Your theory predicts all orbits should increase by the same proportion over time, but the moon orbit increases (as a ratio of its orbital radius) by 1,500,000 times more than does Earth, instead of the same ratio as you predict.

The key idea is that ALL the planets and ALL the moons in the solar system are drifting outwards over time.

Yes, but they're not.  All of Mars' moons and over half of Jupiter's moons are losing orbit.
If you model depends on this idea, it is trivially falsified.

You would never ever find even one planet or one moon in the solar system that drifts inwards.

You need to read more.

This is something that our scientists had missed.

They measured otherwise, failing to wisely realize the truth and discard such obviously biased findings.
Conservation laws were always wrong anyway.

If you can't prove that there is a moon or planet in a solar system that drifts inwards, you can't contradict this key element phenomena in orbital system.

Orbit of Phobos is changing more than the orbital radius of any other measurable object.  It is measured as losing over 34 cm per Martian year, or 18 cm per Earth year.  You can choose to deny this of course since the scientists failed to discard this finding each and every time they measure it.  You can also choose to deny when the thing rips apart due to getting too close.

Earth is drifting outward (trivially), but due mostly to a change in M, not a change in G.

[captcass]

We have not been understanding gravity completely. I explain that in detail in my paper mentioned below. There-in, the GDE = Gravitation Direction of Evolution and the FDE = Fundamental Direction of Evolution.

This is an excerpt from the paper which I am also discussing in the "Is The Hubble Shift Due To Time Dilation" and "What is Space" threads in New Theories. This is from the section on Galactic Rotation Velocities:

"The masses of flattened spiral galaxy systems and spherical stellar systems have different shapes and, therefore, different shaped time dilation gradients and different effects in the time aspect.

Within a stellar system, where GR works so well, as the dilation gradient deepens more quickly as the center of the dilation "pit" is approached, all events appear to accelerate increasingly in spacetime, appearing to evolve forward faster through its apparently faster velocity “through/in” space. The dilation gradient only equalizes in an infinitesimal focal point at the center of the star, impeding the forward evolution of events in all directions, concentrating energy.

In Einstein’s 1915 paper, substituting X, Y, Z, T for his X1, X2, X3, X4, his Fundamental Metric, which can be considered the basis of the tensors describing a null gravitational field, is:

   X   Y   Z   T
X   -1   0   0   0
Y   0   -1   0   0
Z   0   0   -1   0
T   0   0   0   +1

In flattened spiral galaxies, designating the Y axis as being orthogonal to the flat galactic disk, the dilation gradients along the +Y and -Y axes above and below the flat mass of the disk equalize within the disk and as the dRt → 0 along the Y axes, ∆Y→ 0.

As ∆Y = 0 at Y = 0 in the middle of the plane of the galactic disk, the Galactic Fundamental Metric within the disk of a flattened spiral galaxy is:

   X   Y   Z   T
X   -1   0   0   0
Y   0   0   0   0
Z   0   0   -1   0
T   0   0   0   +1

As all the Y elements go to 0, this metric can be reduced to:

   X   Z   T
X   -1   0   0
Z   0   -1   0
T   0   0   +1

As with Einstein’s Fundamental Metric, this Galactic Fundamental Metric cannot be realized in finite space as it also represents a null gravitational field without time dilation. ∆Y also never actually remains at 0 since particles oscillate above and below the plane of the galactic disk.

However, in this fundamental metric without Y elements, forward evolution can only proceed through the X and Z axes, which share a common plane, and we get circular motion around the center of the galactic mass, orthogonal to the dilation gradients. Note that the orbits in a stellar system are also orthogonal to the dilation field. As above, the GDE can only manifest orthogonal to the FDE.

There is a secondary GDE in along the edges where the Y components lose their dominance and we see an evolution inward and the formation of bars.

As the +1 in Einstein’s g44 element of the Fundamental Metric represents an invariable rate of time for all frames along all axes, the +1 of the g33 element in the Galactic Fundamental Metric represents an invariant rate of time along the X and Z axes. Within the galaxy’s dynamic metric, these time elements then change relative to the mass density along the spiral arms, and the apparent velocity relative to adjacent frames is determined by the relative rates of time along the +Y and -Y axes at Y = 0. In the absence of an accelerating gradient as in a stellar system, the relative rate of evolution within the inertial frames of the disk is primarily determined by the rate of time in the inertial frames. Thus, we see an initial rapid increase in velocities near the center of the galaxy, where the rate of time rapidly increases with distance from the massive central MECO (Magnetic Eternally Collapsing Object - the latest in black hole development).

Velocities appear slower between the arms, despite the faster rate of time, due to the shallower gradient. Within the arms, where densities are concentrated, the gradient is deeper along the Y axes and velocities appear
accelerated more as they do in a deeper gradient in a stellar system.  The dilation gradients along the Y axis decrease in slope as mass densities decrease along the arms, time goes faster at Y = 0, and we see a slightly faster evolution (apparent velocity) of the stellar systems within the continuum with distance from the galactic center.
 
The g33 element also varies slightly relative to the slope and depth of the gradients within the individual stellar systems. This slope effect also manifests the same as we see in a stellar system where relative acceleration increases as the gradient of the slope deepens. A test of this would be that larger masses and groups of masses should therefore appear to be evolving forward faster, and appear to have higher velocities, relative to nearby smaller masses due to their deeper, steeper, individual gradients.

Although the primary dilation gradient is along the Y axes, as the disk flattens there is also a secondary gradient looking in from the edges. The evolution in this directions forms the bars of Sb galaxies."

The full 21 page paper, General Relativity: Effects in Time As Causation, is on vixra.org at http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109#comment-3850079405 and a final version will be published in some form by a cosmological journal in what I hope is the near future, as discussed in the other threads.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The key idea is that ALL the planets and ALL the moons in the solar system are drifting outwards over time.

Yes, but they're not.  All of Mars' moons and over half of Jupiter's moons are losing orbit.
If you model depends on this idea, it is trivially falsified.

Can you please specify one moon (around Mars or Jupiter) that we have measured its orbital radius and verify that it is really losing orbit?
You know that we just assume that those moons are drifting outwards, but in reality we didn't confirm our hypothetical idea.
So, please don't say something which is incorrect.
You can't say for sure that those moons drift outwards without real measurements.
It was a big surprise for our scientists when they have discovered that the moon is drifting outwards from Earth. No one at that time had expected to see that increase in the orbital radius.
Therefore, it will also be a big surprise for our scientists when they will discover that ALL moons in the solar system are drifting outwards (Including All of Mars' moons and ALL Jupiter's moons).!!!

The friction is mostly between water and the sea floor, which is direct physical contact, and is where all the heat is generated.

The friction in the Earth is none relevant to the friction between the Earth to the Moon.
Just a simple example -
Let's assume that you sit at a bus while it drive at 120 Km/s
If you set a friction between your hand to the bus body, does it mean that you set a friction between the bus and the road?
In the same token, a friction between water and the sea floor on the Earth can't set a friction between the Earth and the Moon.
Orbital objects as Moon and planets are losing gravity force over time. This is a normal activity in gravity. Therefore, the Moon increases its orbital radius (around the earth) over time.

 

[Halc]

Can you please specify one moon (around Mars or Jupiter) that we have measured its orbital radius and verify that it is really losing orbit?
You know that we just assume that those moons are drifting outwards, but in reality we didn't confirm our hypothetical idea.

See my prior post, giving measured numbers for Phobos, the moon with the largest orbital change per year of anything in the solar system.  It has been repeatedly measured, not just assumed.

The friction is mostly between water and the sea floor, which is direct physical contact, and is where all the heat is generated.

The friction in the Earth is none relevant to the friction between the Earth to the Moon.[/quote]
There is no direct friction between those two.  They don't touch.  The energy added to the moon is pure gravitational.  If there was friction, it would lose kinetic energy and drop down.  Friction reduces total mechanical energy, not increases it.  I can think of no exception to this.

Just a simple example -
Let's assume that you sit at a bus while it drive at 120 Km/s
If you set a friction between your hand to the bus body, does it mean that you set a friction between the bus and the road?

The friction between the bus and the road was already there.  My hand on the interior doesn't change that.  There is not much friction with the road since little is sliding across it.  Most of the friction would be with the air and the internal bearings of the bus and such.  These are parts that move across each other by physical contact.  Not so much the road since the tires move at the same velocity as the road where they touch, even when accelerating or braking.

In the same token, a friction between water and the sea floor on the Earth can't set a friction between the Earth and the Moon.

I didn't claim there was friction between Earth and the moon.  They don't touch.  The dynamics between the two is simple gravitational thrust equivalent to a rock accelerating when spun around in a sling shot.

Orbital objects as Moon and planets are losing gravity force over time. This is a normal activity in gravity. Therefore, the Moon increases its orbital radius (around the earth) over time.

I pointed out several falsification tests for this.  You ignored them, exactly as I assumed you would.  You don't do science.  You ignore any evidence against your view, and cherry pick facts out of context to support a theory that has never been described.  I see no formula for gravitational weakening over time.  You make no explanation as to why galaxies in the past seem to have the same gravity as modern ones.  This is exactly how the scientific method doesn't work.

In addition, your idea (I haven't seen a theory based on the idea) doesn't explain the sun's acceleration about the galaxy.  If gravity is weakening, all objects should be accelerating less than the scientists predict, and even they predicted an acceleration less than what is observed.  Your idea makes that problem even worse, not better.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

See my prior post, giving measured numbers for Phobos, the moon with the largest orbital change per year of anything in the solar system.  It has been repeatedly measured, not just assumed.

Please see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)
Phobos has dimensions of 27 km × 22 km × 18 km,[1] and retains too little mass to be rounded under its own gravity.
So, Phobos is very small object (comparing to real moons) and it doesn't have a clear ball shape structure. It has no symmetrical shape.  It is clearly a broken object.
Therefore, why don't we call it asteroid? No more than that.
For example - Vesta — the second-largest asteroid in the solar system at 525 km (326 miles) in size and is located in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
So, how could it be that an object at about 500 Km we call Asteroid, while a broken object about 25 Km we call moon...?

"Phobos orbits 6,000 km (3,700 mi) from the Martian surface, closer to its primary body than any other known planetary moon. It is so close that it orbits Mars much faster than Mars rotates, and completes an orbit in just 7 hours and 39 minutes."
So, this asteroid is very close to Mars.
Mars radius about 3400 Km.
So the ratio between mars radius to Phobos orbits from the Martian surface is 1:2.
At this ration it is clear that it is drifting inwards.
Therefore, Phobos is a wrong example.
Please try to offer a real moon (not a small broken object) with a relative longer orbital radius (similar to the Earth moon ratio).

[Halc]

So, how could it be that an object at about 500 Km we call Asteroid, while a broken object about 25 Km we call moon...?

Phobos orbits a planet.  Vesta does not.  That's the difference between moon and asteroid.  Vesta isn't large enough to clean up its orbit, which is why it isn't considered a planet in itself.
The names we give to these types of objects does not have any effect on how gravity acts on them.

"Phobos orbits 6,000 km (3,700 mi) from the Martian surface, ... "
So, this asteroid is very close to Mars.
Mars radius about 3400 Km.
So the ratio between mars radius to Phobos orbits from the Martian surface is 1:2.

More like 1:2.75.  Orbital radius is measured from the center, not the surface, so it is about 9400 km.  6000 km is its altitude, not its orbital radius.

There are several moons of other planets with tighter ratios than that.  Mimas (around Saturn) has a slightly lower ratio, and is quite a nice large round moon, since you seem to find that important.
Thebe (around Jupiter) is a misshapen lump about 4 times the size of Phobos and orbits at a ratio a little larger (3x) the radius.  Both these moons are increasing their orbits.

At this ration it is clear that it is drifting inwards.

You spend pages of posts denying inward drift, and suddenly it is clear that it must, totally without explanation.  Does gravity only grow less over time if it is working on large things?  Is there a separate increasing-over-time gravity for the little stuff?
All I see is that you find you cannot continue to deny that Phobos is losing altitude.  You've denied this in several of the recent posts, but all of a sudden "it is clear" that it must.  What is happening is that your idea was falsified.  Weakening gravity would send Phobos to higher orbits if only strength of gravity determined such things.
Earth should be moving away from the sun at 1,500,000 times the value seen to keep up with the decreasing gravity that accounts for the moon movement.  Earth is a bigger round thing, so not under the just-made-up law of non-weakening of gravity for little things.

Please try to offer a real moon (not a small broken object) with a relative longer orbital radius (similar to the Earth moon ratio).

All the big ones have positive orbital periods and lie outside geosync radius, so they all move outward per tidal forces.    Lack of a large counterexample does not explain why suddenly you find it clear that Phobos orbit must be degrading when all the prior posts asserted otherwise.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Lack of a large counterexample does not explain why suddenly you find it clear that Phobos orbit must be degrading when all the prior posts asserted otherwise.

Phobos is none relevant due to its size, shape and its orbital radius ratio.
However, you have stated that:

All of Mars' moons and over half of Jupiter's moons are losing orbit.

So, would you kindly offer another moon (From Mars or Jupiter) that meets the criteria and is losing orbit?

All the big ones have positive orbital periods and lie outside geosync radius, so they all move outward per tidal forces.

If I understand you correctly, there is no real evidence which can contradicts my statement that all real moons and planets are drifting outwards.
However, you claim that this process is due to "tidal forces" and I claim that it is due to normal gravity force reduction over time!!!
Please look again at the following:
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
If we could monitor the orbital motion (gray line) of the Sun, we would clearly find that it drifts outwards from the center.
The assumption that the sun can orbit at the same radius for several billion years is absolutely incorrect.
The Sun' orbital motion must drifts outwards over time.
In the same token, any other star' orbital motion must drifts outwards!!!

[Halc]

However, you claim that this process is due to "tidal forces" and I claim that it is due to normal gravity force reduction over time!!!

How much does gravity degrade over time?  Why does it only affect the moon and not Earth?
How does gravity know to degrade only for masses that Dave Lev designates as 'real moons' and not for other masses made of the exact same component materials?

Please look again at the following:
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
If we could monitor the orbital motion (gray line) of the Sun, we would clearly find that it drifts outwards from the center

On the contrary.  Your theory says it should move immediately quickly from the center since it cannot hold this high acceleration needed to maintain that 8 kpc radius at a whopping 217 km/sec.
It shouldn't drift outward, but rather should never have been this far inward in the first place.  Your idea of degraded gravity makes that problem even worse.

[captcass]

strength of gravity

The trouble is that neither of you has defined gravity, as I do in the paper noted in my previous post. GR describes gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime. I take it an additional step by pointing out that the curvature also represents the forward evolution of space, and the densities there-in, due to the force of the passage of time.

The passage of time is the fundamental force as it evolves space, and the events (densities) there-in, forward. When a dilation gradient is introduced, we also see an evolution down the gradient, This is the Gravitational Direction of Evolution, or GDE. The curvature of evolution we see in GR is the resultant of the GDE and Fundamental Direction of Evolutuion, or FDE, due to the simple passage of time.

The "strength of gravity" is determined by differences in the rates of time between frames, as per GR and my additional perspective.

I can't even try to read what you guys are writing as it all makes no sense as gravity, as per GR, is not defined as a force other than that due to the differences in the rates of time, Einstein's "energy components", and resultant relative lengths in space, between frames.

In spiral galaxies, this manifests as in my previous post.

Where you appear to be speaking about "friction", you should probably be looking at "frame dragging" which, again, is dependent on relative rates of time, which are also dependent on relative perspectives..... 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How much does gravity degrade over time?

Good question.
There is no current formula for that. I assume that we have to verify the gravity degrade per many orbital objects and try to develop the requested formula for that.

Why does it only affect the moon and not Earth? How does gravity know to degrade only for masses that Dave Lev designates as 'real moons' and not for other masses made of the exact same component materials?

It effects any orbital System.(Asteroid, Moon, Planet, Star, BH, Dust, Gas cloud...)
However, the formula itself should include the orbital drifting direction and amplitude.
It should be based on the current "orbital radius ratio" (Orbital radius to Host radius ratio), Mass ratio (orbital object to host mass), "Friction" (If there is a friction. For example due to atmosphere) and some other factors (for example - Orbital structure or shape and so on).
I'm quite sure that If Newton or Einstein had the current measurements that we have today, they could find the correct formula for orbital drifting amplitude per cycle and its direction.
In any case, all orbital objects must drift in one or the other direction. Nothing can stay forever at the same radius!
Therefore, the assumption that the Sun has to stay at the same radius from day one is absolutely incorrect.
It is quite clear that all the real moons, Planets and stars must drift outwards. Even most of Asteroids drift outwards. The Oort cloud is a perfect example for billions of asteroids that had been drifted outwards from the core of the Solar system while they all orbit around the solar system. Today - all of them are still drifting outwards (even if we see that some of them are moving inwards - There is an explanation for that).
However, few of the Asteroids might drift inwards and eventually collide with their host. It happened on Earth with the big asteroid collision that had killed all the dinosaurs that have lived here (and gave us the opportunity to come). It also should be the final outcome of Phobos with Mars.

On the contrary.  Your theory says it should move immediately quickly from the center since it cannot hold this high acceleration needed to maintain that 8 kpc radius at a whopping 217 km/sec.
It shouldn't drift outward, but rather should never have been this far inward in the first place.  Your idea of degraded gravity makes that problem even worse.

Sorry. This is incorrect.
My theory doesn't say that none realistic idea.

Please, give me the chance to explain the theory.
Please don't continue to argue about those two key elements.
With your permission, please let's assume that those two elements are correct and let's see how they give us the breakthrough knowledge about our Universe.
They should lead us to have excellent understanding of:
- How spiral galaxy had been created?
- Why we see the Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms, and all the other mass around the galaxy.
- What is the answer for the Galaxy rotation curve problem.
- What is the real mass of the SMBH in the Milky way
- Why there is no need for dark matter to set the spiral galaxy
- Why for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside
- Why there are hydrogen clouds strewn/bridge between Andromeda (M31) and Triangulum (M33).
- Why the far end galaxies are moving away at ultra velocity, while the density of the Universe stay at the same ratio.
- Why the universe has a blackbody radiation
- What is the age of the Universe
- What is the size of the universe
And many more questions...
All of that without any help from dark matter or dark energy.
Just pure gravity force and the two following elements:
1. All stars in the galaxy are increasing their orbital motion radius over time.
2. All stars in the galaxy must orbit around some virtual host..

Please give me the chance to explain the theory.
Let's stop the endless discussion about those two elements.
So, please from now on we will assume that those two elements are correct and try to understand what could be the outcome.
Would you kindly agree for that?

[Halc]

Please give me the chance to explain the theory.
Would you kindly agree for that?

I've agreed to this several times before.  It's not like you need permission from me.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I've agreed to this several times before.  It's not like you need permission from me.

Thanks
So, from now on we will assume that the following two elements are fully correct:
1. All stars in the galaxy must orbit around some virtual host point.
This virtual host point represents the real orbital motion point of a star around the center of the galaxy.
2. The orbital motion radius is increasing over time.
In the same token, Based on the formula (which we still have to find) any orbital object which has a high enough "orbital radius ratio" (and some other factors) is increasing its orbital radius over time. Therefore, all real Moons and planets are increasing their orbital radius over time.
   
I will introduce the theory step by step, based on those two elements and pure gravity force.
In each step I would mostly appreciate to get your feedback (again - based on the idea that those two elements are fully correct.)
In this theory there is no need for dark matter, dark energy, space expansion, density wave and any other none realistic hypothetical idea.
Just after the final step in the theory introduction, we can go back and verify if those two elements are correct or not.
Thanks for the cooperation in advance.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's start the theory by the focusing on the Sun' orbital motion.
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
We see the apparent motion of the solar system (blue dot points) the virtual host point (orange ball) and the real orbital motion of the sun around the galaxy (gray line).
Let's start with the apparent motion of the solar system. (Blue dot points).
We see that it has an elliptical shape. If I remember correctly, the ratio between the maximal length to the minimal lengths is 20 to 7.
This elliptical orbit represents the Sun orbit around its host virtual point.
Based on our understanding, it is claer that the sun must increase its orbital radius over time. Therefore, the length of this elliptical orbital cycle must increase over time.
The sun will never ever come back again to the same point in this elliptical cycle.
It will form some sort of spiral shape around this elliptical cycle.
The virtual host point (orange ball) orbits around the galaxy. This orbit (gray line) represents the real motion of the sun around the galaxy.
Please be aware that also the radius of this orbit must increase over time. Therefore we should see a spiral shape as every movement the sun is increasing its orbital motion radius.
The outcome is quite simple -
The measured sun' orbital speed represents the combination of the Sun orbit around the virtual host + the real Sun orbital motion around the galaxy.
Therefore, if we need to extract the real orbital motion of the sun around the galaxy, we must deduct from the measured sun' orbital speed the impact of the sun orbital speed around its virtual host.
Hence, I can only assume that if the 220 Km/s represents the measured orbital speed of the sun, the real orbital motion of the sun around the galaxy should be in the range of 210km/sec or less.
Please also be aware that the real orbital motion is located at the same distance from the galactic disc.
This is very important outcome from this image. We will use it later on.
Please let me know if you agree with all of that (again - based on the assumptions that the two key elements are fully correct)

[Halc]

Let's start the theory by the focusing on the Sun' orbital motion.
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

You do realize that this diagram you keep referencing is a simplified model based on a series of facts, many of which are incorrect.  It comes from http://www.biocab.org/coplanarity_solar_system_and_galaxy.html
which states that the plane of the solar system is tilted at 90° WRT the galactic plane.  The actual figure is about 63°.
Here is another gem:

The second movement, which is described in most of astronomy books, is an oscillation of the Solar System from north to south and from south to north with respect to the galactic plane. The oscillation “upwards” and “downwards” is mainly established by the gravitational pull exerted by other bodies of the Solar System on the Sun, i.e. planets, asteroids, etc. The speed of this movement is 7 km/s.[\i]

They apparently seem to claim that our planets and asteroids are capable of dragging the sun back and forth at a pace of 7 km/s, and that "most of anstronomy textbooks" describe this.  Those 'textbooks' are seemingly where they are getting their facts, not from data directly from actual astronomical surveys.

Their model has the axis of rotation for this helical motion (they never call it an orbit) rotating with the position in the galaxy, always staying tangential to the curving dashed grey orbit line (that line they do call an orbit).  Orbits don't change their axis like that, so they rightly don't describe the motion as 'orbital'.  The axis of an orbit tends to be fixed over time, so our solar system has always had this 63° tilt and does not process to a different orientation when we've moved a quarter of the distance around the galaxy.

I say all this because you're seemingly using this one diagram of a poor model as some sort of measured scientific fact instead of just just a diagram of a model that it claims to be.  The site is a biology site, hardly the first place I'd look for accurate information on this subject.

The site also does not explain how the N/S motion (7 km/s) and the in/out (20 km/s) motion just happen to have the same periods.  The model is not described in detail.

Please let me know if you agree with all of that (again - based on the assumptions that the two key elements are fully correct)

You asked my in my prior post to stop with me pointing out the points with which I disagree.  I'm still doing that, but it doesn't imply that I agree with you.  If you don't want critique, don't ask me if I agree with your posts.  I'm still waiting to see where this goes.

My post here is not so much a critique of your view, but rather a critique of this diagram from which you seem to be drawing your facts.

I will introduce the theory step by step, based on those two elements and pure gravity force.
In each step I would mostly appreciate to get your feedback (again - based on the idea that those two elements are fully correct.)

I am assuming your two elements are correct.  I am staying quiet about the implications of those two elements since they've not really been spelled out.  I cannot make predictions from them yet, so I cannot falsify them.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I am assuming your two elements are correct.  I am staying quiet about the implications of those two elements since they've not really been spelled out.  I cannot make predictions from them yet, so I cannot falsify them.

I do appreciate your good willing to accept the two elements for this discussion.
The idea if the plane of the solar system is tilted at 90° WRT the galactic plane or 63° Isn't relevant to our discussion.
In the same token, it is also not relevant if they call the Sun orbital movement around the virtual host point (orange point) as a swinging motion.
However, the image itself shows clearly that the sun orbits around the virtual host point (orange ball) while this host orbits around the galaxy at the same amplitude (or distance) from the galactic plane.
Please look at the following image (from different article):
https://www.space.com/10532-earth-biodiversity-pattern-trace-bobbing-solar-system-path.html
It is stated that "the solar system moves around the center of the galaxy like planets around the Sun"
"The circular motion around the center is shown by the white dashed line."
This dashed line looks the same as the orbital motion of the virtual sun host point in the other article (which was represented by the gray line).
Hence, in both articles we see a similar view/outcome.

In any case, you didn't reply my questions:
Do you agree that based on the two key elements?
1. The Virtual sun host (Orange ball) is located at the same distance from the galactic disc plane while it orbits around the galaxy (gray line in one article or dashed white line in the other)?
2. The Virtual sun host orbital velocity around the galaxy is lower than "the actual motion of the sun" (Green line). Less than 210 Km/s instead of 220 Km/s?
Do you agree with that?

[Halc]

Please look at the following image (from different article):
https://www.space.com/10532-earth-biodiversity-pattern-trace-bobbing-solar-system-path.html

It shows the vertical motion, same as the other diagram, corresponding to the 7 km/sec component of the helix (the one the bioCab attributes to gravity from our own planets).  The other article didn't give a period to the wiggle, but this one says every 62 million years.  That's about 4 waves per trip around the galaxy, less than the tighter frequency depicted in their image, and far less than the dense helix depicted in the bioCab simulation.
The image does not depict an in/out motion, and so doesn't state the period of that if it exists.  The existence of that motion seems not relevant to the point this article is trying to make, so they're not denying its existence.

It is stated that "the solar system moves around the center of the galaxy like planets around the Sun"
"The circular motion around the center is shown by the white dashed line."
This dashed line looks the same as the orbital motion of the virtual sun host point in the other article (which was represented by the gray line).
Hence, in both articles we see a similar view/outcome.

Right.  This new image has the solar system going the wrong way around, but again, that direction is irrelevant to the point of the article, so they didn't bother to check.

In any case, you didn't reply my questions:
Do you agree that based on the two key elements?
1. The Virtual sun host (Orange ball) is located at the same distance from the galactic disc plane while it orbits around the galaxy (gray line in one article or dashed white line in the other)?
2. The Virtual sun host orbital velocity around the galaxy is lower than "the actual motion of the sun" (Green line). Less than 210 Km/s instead of 220 Km/s?
Do you agree with that?

If that is the host point, then yes, that path takes a roughly circular path around the galaxy.  That the motion of the solar system in relation to that host point can be qualified as 'orbital' is something that seems to be part of your idea, but I have no data on the actual nature of that motion.  This new article gave a period to the north/south motion at least.
As for point 2, the speed 217 km/sec usually refers to motion of the host point, but slow (7-20 km/sec) motion tangential to that will alter that speed less than half a percent, so 216-218 range at best if the 217 figure is accurate. 
This is trivial trigonometry. Most estimates (from a google search) put it a bit higher.

[captcass]

1. The Virtual sun host (Orange ball) is located at the same distance from the galactic disc plane while it orbits around the galaxy (gray line in one article or dashed white line in the other)?
2. The Virtual sun host orbital velocity around the galaxy is lower than "the actual motion of the sun" (Green line). Less than 210 Km/s instead of 220 Km/s?

Sorry, neither of these is correct so the resultant conclusion is also wrong.

Motion and velocities are only relative based upon perspective. You are ignoring that. (I would also point out that the disk is not uniform, but consists of conical spiral arms of varying densities. That complication does not need to be considered here.)

For instance, considering the perspective of the orbits of Mercury and Venus relative to the plane of the ecliptic, we assign Mercury a velocity of 47.89 km/s and Venus one of 35.03 km/s, a large difference.

But if we consider the velocity of the Sun and its forward evolution in time relative to the CMB, and the helical distances travelled by the planets we get a much different perspective:

(in the following computations the inclination of the plane of the ecliptic is ignored and:
Planetary orbital lengths and periods are as per NASA.
Orbital periods are related to 1 Earth year.
Orbital lengths are as perceived “around the Sun”.
Helical orbital lengths are computed using the following formula:
(Distance travelled by the Sun)² + (Orbital length)² = (Helical length)²
The distance travelled by the Sun is relative to the CMB.
Sun velocity = 368 km/s = 11.60672*10⁹ km/yr.)

Mercury:
Orbital length: 57.909227*10⁶ km
Orbital period = .24 yr
Orbits/yr = 4.1666
Total orbital length = 241.249839*10⁶ km
Helical length = 11.609226961*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.07948 km/s vs 47.89 km/s

Venus:
Orbital length: 10.8209475*10⁷ km
Orbital period = .62 yr
Orbits/yr = 1.6129
Total orbital length = 17.4531062*10⁷ km
Helical length = 11.608032143*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.04160 km/s vs 35.03 km/s

Earth:
Orbital length: 14.9598262*10⁷ km
Orbital period = 1 yr
Orbits/yr = 1
Total orbital length = 14.9598262*10⁷  km
Helical length = 11.607684041*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.03056 km/s vs 29.79

Mars:
Orbital length: 22.7943824*10⁷  km
Orbital period = 1.88 yr
Orbits/yr = .5319
Total orbital length = 121.2467148*10⁶ km
Helical length = 11.607353269*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.02007 km/s vs 24.13

Jupiter:
Orbital length: 778.340821*10⁶ km
Orbital period = 11.86 yr
Orbits/yr = 0.0843
Total orbital length = 65.6273879*10⁶ km
Helical length = 11.606905535*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.00588 km/s vs 13.06

Saturn:
Orbital length: 142.6666422*10⁷ km
Orbital period = 29.46 yr
Orbits/yr = 0.0339
Total orbital length = 484.27237*10⁵ km
Helical length = 11.606821027*10⁹ km 12576482920
Velocity = 368.00320 km/s vs 9.64

Uranus:
Orbital length: 287.0658186*10⁷ km
Orbital period = 84.01 yr
Orbits/yr = .0199
Total orbital length = 341.70434*10⁵ km
Helical length = 11.606770299*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.00159 km/s vs 6.81

Neptune
Orbital length: 449.8396441*10⁷ km
Orbital period = 164.8 yr
Orbits/yr = 0.0060
Total orbital length = 272.96094*10⁵ km
Helical length = 11.606752096*10⁹ km
Velocity = 368.00101 km/s vs 5.43

From this perspective, the velocities, or rate of evolution, of Mercury and Venus are only .038 km/s different. Note also that as we increase distance from the Sun, the velocities decrease until Neptune has a velocity only .001 km/s different from the base velocity of the Sun. Relative velocities equalize with a larger perspective. If we shift out to the local group and its apparent motion relative to the CMB of 627 km/s, the difference between the Sun and Neptune’s velocity is only .00059 km/s. Viewed as a whole, the universal evolutionary rate of evolution, and apparent resultant relative velocity, is 1: all events in space evolving forward at the same rate over a steady rate of time.

This is the evolution of the quantum continuum. This is how I tie quantum and astro- physics together.

In both perspectives, the velocity and acceleration are directly related to the difference in the rate of time (dRt)/distance so are higher in steeper gradients, and this higher apparent acceleration of events in slower time frames maintains their relative positions within the overall continuum as it evolves forward as viewed from both perspectives. 

This means GR is describing the forward evolution of the continuum and the events occurring within it, rather than the evolution of events through pre-existing “curved spacetime”. It is not the masses that determine relative velocities and trajectories, but the dynamics and perspectives in time.

Again, this is extracted from my paper on Relativity found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109#comment-3850079405.


. 

[Halc]

1. The Virtual sun host (Orange ball) is located at the same distance from the galactic disc plane while it orbits around the galaxy (gray line in one article or dashed white line in the other)?
2. The Virtual sun host orbital velocity around the galaxy is lower than "the actual motion of the sun" (Green line). Less than 210 Km/s instead of 220 Km/s?

Sorry, neither of these is correct so the resultant conclusion is also wrong.

Motion and velocities are only relative based upon perspective. You are ignoring that.

He is not ignoring it.  There is a 'perspective' (as you put it) for each of the values specified.
Point 2 might be wrong, but not for the reasons you seem to point out.

For instance, considering the perspective of the orbits of Mercury and Venus relative to the plane of the ecliptic, we assign Mercury a velocity of 47.89 km/s and Venus one of 35.03 km/s, a large difference.

That would be relative to the frame of the solar system, not 'relative to the plane of the ecliptic'.  A plane is not a valid reference frame.

But if we consider the velocity of the Sun and its forward evolution in time relative to the CMB

The CMB is light, not an object relative to which one might have a velocity.  I presume you mean relative to the frame in which the CMB appears to be isotropic, but you don't say that.

in the following computations the inclination of the plane of the ecliptic is ignored

But the inclination is not zero, so all of the number you quote are wrong, especially comments like this one:

Note also that as we increase distance from the Sun, the velocities decrease until Neptune has a velocity only .001 km/s different from the base velocity of the Sun.

I suppose this would be the speed difference in a frame where the inclination put the axis of the solar system parallel with the direction of travel, but this is not the case in the frame you specify, so this comment is totally wrong.  You seem to base some conclusion on this fact, so the conclusion is wrong.  I could not figure out the whole point of your post.  I think it might just have been an excuse to plug the link to your paper, which I have no plans to read.
How is any of this post relevant to the discussion going on in this topic?

Relative velocities equalize with a larger perspective.

No they don't, at least not until you get to relativistic speeds.  Even if the inclination was flat on like you suggest, the relative velocity between the sun and Neptune would be about 5.4 km/sec, not the .001 km/sec figure you suggest.
The value you quote is a difference in speed, not a difference in velocity.  I can take any two objects with arbitrarily high and random velocity differences and find frames in which they have the same speed.  So what?  The frame you selected is not one of those frames.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Halc
Now the question is - What is the estimated mass of the Sun' virtual host point?

It shows the vertical motion, same as the other diagram, corresponding to the 7 km/sec component of the helix (the one the bioCab attributes to gravity from our own planets).  The other article didn't give a period to the wiggle, but this one says every 62 million years.  That's about 4 waves per trip around the galaxy, less than the tighter frequency depicted in their image, and far less than the dense helix depicted in the bioCab simulation.

So, we know that the Sun sets one full orbit around this virtual host point in 62 Million years.
However, I have no data about the orbital radius.
I assume that based on the radius and the orbital time we could calculate the requested mass.
Any idea?