0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.)
So, do you understand by now why the virtual host velocity is lower than the sun actual orbital velocity?
Sorry. As I pointed out above, this is non-sensical. You are trying to prove the impossible, i.e., objects evolving against the direction of the time dilation gradient, or backwards gravity. Gravity only has one direction which is down the dilation gradient.You are trying to imagine a virtual host that does not exist. The white line is meaningless. It only marks the plane of the ecliptic in the pictured galaxy. As Dave pointed out previously the scale is way off in the picture, as well. Even if your virtual host existed the difference in velocity would be meaningless.
Dave, I suggest you just ignore these posts by captcass.
I see you invoking references to the CMB which is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of the dynamics of a local system.
It seems to have maximum acceleration at the peaks of the waves, when it is furthest from this host point, which makes the motion not really 'orbital', where max acceleration is reached when the object is closest to the point around which it orbits.
There just isn't any significant mass a light year away to give your 'host point' the sort of pull it would need to haul the sun around at 10 km/sec at that tight radius, which would be incredible acceleration.
Why do you keep criticize those two key elements in my theory?
Let me give you an example:Let's assume that you want to teach you kid mathematics.For one year you tell him that the first two key elements in mathematics are:1 + 1 = 21 - 1 = 0Unfortunately, your kid doesn't agree to accept those two elements.So, at some moment you ask him to take it as is.However, at any step forward he tries to criticize those two basic elements.So, how can you give him any basic understanding about mathematics, if he doesn't agree with those two key elements?
If so, there is no real mass at the virtual host point.
It just represents the equivalent mass which is needed to keep the sun in that orbital cycle around that virtual point.It also doesn't important if the orbital cycle is elliptic or pure cycle.
There is no big difference if we need to use Newton formula or Kepler.However, during this discussion, if possible - let's consider the orbital cycles as pure cycle ( just to make it more easy to set the calculation).Do you agree with all of that?
Actually, I do.
QuoteIf so, there is no real mass at the virtual host point.I never claimed there has to be, but there has to be mass somewhere. Pluto and Charon orbit a common virtual host point, and there is no mass at that point. But each constitutes the mass that is responsible for the orbit of the other. Without either one of those two bodies, there would be no virtual point about which the other could orbit.
And suppose the child agrees to just take those two points as is, and yet the parent keeps harping on those two points instead of moving on.
So, as our Sun orbits around a virtual host point, every star must do so.
In the same token, as that virtual host point orbits at a fixed amplitude from the galactic disc, every other virtual host point must do so.
On the other hand - please see the second element:2. The orbital motion radius is increasing over time.
Based on that idea, all the stars, gas clouds, dust... are drifting outwards from the center. Nothing can move inwards.
So, how could it be that the center is full with mass, while all the mass is drifting in one way out?The only logical outcome is that the galaxy must create new mass in order to compensate on all the mass that had been drifted out.
Hence, the accretion disc is actually an excretion disc.I have already discussed deeply on the activity of new mass creation in the galaxy.I have poved that an Atom is a cell of energy.So, the SMBH converts its ultra high gravity force into energy. this energy is locked in new Atoms in the plasma.It creates new Hydrogen atoms at this axcretion disc. Then due to the collisions between those new born atoms it creats all the variety of atoms and molecular.The ultra high temp of the plasma in the accretion disc (10 ^9 c) is a clear evidence for the new born atom activity at that disc.
As all the new born molecular drift outwards from the disc - remember - all objects must drift outwards over time including those Atoms), they get to the magnetic shield around the accretion disc.This Ultra power of magnetic disc, boost the atoms upwards at a speed of almost 0.8 c.R
As they move up, they lose the boost of the magnetic force and eventually they fall back at the galactic disc plane.They set the gas could that we see around the SMBH.However, In the gas clouds, the molecular orbits around some virtual center of mass (as explained in element 1).I assume that the orbital velocity in the gas cloud is quite high.
This internal orbit in the gas cloud, pulse the great impact of the nearby SMBH set the Huge New form star activity that we see.Any new born star must drift outwards while it orbits around some virtual center of mass.
That is all for that step in my theory.Please let me know if based on the two elements - you agree with the outcome.
Does everything orbit a virtual host point, or only stars? If the latter, what delimits objects with a VHP vs ones that don't? What about a small black hole, or a cold black dwarf that has less mass than some planets?For instance, Venus doesn't seem to orbit a VHP. It goes pretty much in a normal elliptical orbit straight around the sun with no extra wobble of its own.
All the stars in the galaxy must orbit around some virtual host point. That includes all the stars in the Bulge, Bar, Spiral arms and even outside the disc. I will explain later on how the gravity impact the orbital cycle at each segment.However, In the Solar system there is only one big star. The Sun is the leading gravity power in the solar system.Therefore, there is no need for a virtual host point.
Gravity force on the moon is more than a twice than the Earth gravity force on the moon.
This is very important evidence.I wonder why our scientists had neglected this observation.
In order to do so, it is clear to me that in day one of the Sun/Earth/Moon system the gravity force of the Earth/moon was much stronger than the Sun/Moon.I assume that you head about the word - "Hysteresis".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis"Hysteresis is the dependence of the state of a system on its history."
That is very clear based on my theory.All the stars/Planets/Moon... had been formed at those molecular gas clouds at the same moment!!!Our Sun, Earth and moon had been created at the same day (more or less) and from the same matter.So, in day one of the solar system there were no rocky planets or moons.
All the objects were very nice round gas objects (yes even our Earth and Moon).However, it is clear that the gas atoms (especially - Hydrogen) were dominant in all of those new formed objects.As an example - "The sun is a big ball of gas and plasma. Most of the gas — 91 percent — is hydrogen"https://www.space.com/17170-what-is-the-sun-made-of.htmlIf I understand it correctly, less than 2% in the gas clouds are solid molecular (Silicate, Iron... and even water)Therefore, today the Earth & the Moon has less than 2% from the whole matter which they had in day one.Hence, the real Earth mass in day one was bigger by 98 from its current mass value. (same issue with all the rocky planets and moons in the solar system).Therefore, the gravity force between the Earth moon in day one was much higher than the Sun moon.That is the History!!!We prove it by - "Hysteresis is the dependence of the state of a system on its history."
In any case, all the rocky planets and moons were too small to hold the gas Atoms.
Due to gravity force, all the heavier molecular moved to the center of the young planets/moons while most/all the gas had been ejected out over time. Therefore, all of them have a very nice ball shape. We would never ever get a nice ball shape if from day one all we have is a solid matter. The gas is vital for the ball shape of all the planets and moons. In other wards - there is no way that the moon had been created due to some none realistic collision with the EarthThe other gas planets were big enough to hold significant portion of the gas. Therefore, we also call them gas planets.The Sun is the biggest one. Therefore even after all the hydrogen fusion process it has 91% of Hydrogen atoms.Even Ceres - was a nice big ball shape planet in early time.Unfortunately, some other big object had been collided with this planet and broke it to small pieces.
The Earth have got all its water supply from day one. (Therefore, there was no need for secial water delivery as our scientists believed.)If I understand it correctly, there is no DNA for matter. However, if we could check it, we should find that all the matter in the solar system has the same DNA.Actually, as all the matter in the Milky way had been created by the same SMBH, they all should carry the same DNA.
QuoteIn the same token, as that virtual host point orbits at a fixed amplitude from the galactic disc, every other virtual host point must do so.What do you mean by this? They have an orbit, a wobble (sort of like the green sin wave)? What do you mean by 'fixed'? Do all VHP's have this same amplitude, or do you mean each is different but regular, not varying from one peak to the next?
What has this VHP thing got to do with the stuff below where the center of the galaxy creates new matter that is expelled away from there?
QuoteBased on that idea, all the stars, gas clouds, dust... are drifting outwards from the center. Nothing can move inwards.Not even irregular 'not real' moons? You seem to be inconsistent with prior posts, so I'm trying to get it straight.
There is a formula for the temperature of the accretion disk at radius R which is something likeT(R) = √√[3GM⊕/8πσR³ (1−√(Rinner / R)) ]
How does the magnetic disc know which way to send the material? I've never heard of a magnetic field with only rotational symmetry, but I could just be ignorant of that.At what radius does this take place?
Each gas molecule has a virtual host point?
You seem to contradict yourself. You say all stars have a virtual host point, but then say now that the sun doesn't have one. You put it a light-year away in a prior post, and now say it doesn't exist.
Yes, I agree that binary systems have stars that effectively orbit their barycenter (their mutual center of gravity). You calling it a virtual host point just changes the terminology. There's already one word for it.For systems with 3 or more stars, there is very much a center of gravity which remains relatively fixed no matter the motion of the stars involved, but the motion about that point is no longer strictly orbital, depending on the dynamics of the stars. This is what they mean by the three-body problem. Typically pairs of stars orbit each other, and those pairs orbit other stars or other pairs, until there are only 2 bodies left. 3 or more in mutual orbit with no 2 in independent orbit is not stable.Anyway, if you're talking only about the center of mass of multi-star solar systems, then this idea is not controversial. Yes, that point exists, and the motions of the member stars does not move it one bit, but the point goes around the galaxy more or less as a unit. The sun wiggles around its own point, with the point being inside the sun about half the time, and outside the other half. The (quite predictable) path around that fixed point is anything but elliptical. It resembles more of a scribble with no particular cycle to assign a period length.
QuoteGravity force on the moon is more than a twice than the Earth gravity force on the moon.Assuming gravity works like physics says and not like you say, acceleration due to the moon itself at its surface is 0.1630 m/s, 0.0027 due to Earth, and 0.0060 due to sun. That means it is 60 times as much, which indeed is 'more than twice' the acceleration on the moon. It is about 60x in fact.I say acceleration because there is no force of gravity on the moon itself. You would need an object to have a force, and no object was specified. So if I stand on the moon, there might be a force of 135 N on me, but the 'the Earth gravity force on the moon' is about 2e20 N, which is a lot more than my 135 N. That huge 2e20 figure is the force that Earth exerts on the moon, and is also exactly the force that the moon exerts on Earth, at least per standard physics.I'm saying all this because I'm trying to figure out what you meant to say, as opposed to what you actually said.
are you saying that the belt was once a single planet? That planet is not Ceres, which is just the name of that one piece. The hypothetical planet has sometimes been called Phaeton.
QuoteIn the same token, as that virtual host point orbits at a fixed amplitude from the galactic disc, every other virtual host point must do so.This host point orbits around the galaxy.
In any case, as I have stated, all Stars, Planets and real moons must drift outwards.
It is clear to me that in order to prove the none realistic hypothetical ideas, our scientists come with new formula. They think that by mathematics they can force the Universe to act upon their understanding.
Sorry. This is a severe mistake.If they want to prove something, they have to use real formula by Newton, Kepler or Eisenstein.
Quote from: HalcHow does the magnetic disc know which way to send the material? I've never heard of a magnetic field with only rotational symmetry, but I could just be ignorant of that.At what radius does this take place? Good question.I also think that it must be symmetrical.
I have no idea at what radius the magnetic field starts to work.
Quote from: HalcEach gas molecule has a virtual host point?Sure.The atom/molecular must be concentrated in order to set the gas cloud. The only possibility to do so is by orbiting around a virtual host point in the cloud.
So, as the molecular orbit around this virtual host, they start to form all the stars, planets and moons that we have in the galaxy.
In any case, as those two galaxies move away from each other they ejects the leftover of the gas clouds.Therefore, we see all of those gas clouds between the two galaxies.
Do black holes in general generate new matter like that? I ask because we don't seem to see this happening around smaller black holes. What is special at a galaxy center that this process goes on, but we don't see it elsewhere?
QuoteIn any case, as those two galaxies move away from each other they ejects the leftover of the gas clouds.Therefore, we see all of those gas clouds between the two galaxies.They're actually on course for collision in 2.5 billion years, but that's according to those scientists who obviously just make stuff up
QuoteSo, as the molecular orbit around this virtual host, they start to form all the stars, planets and moons that we have in the galaxy.No they don't. They drift away you said. How can a star form if everything drifts away?
There are different kinds of black holes.For quite long time I have thought about that issue.Let's look at the SMBH at the Milky Way.We see clearly that there is matter in the accretion disc.If I understand it correctly, the total mass in the accretion disc is estimated to be in the range of 3 Sun mass.Actually, based on the orbital velocity of the mass at the accretion disc, and the estimated radius, we could easily calculate the real mass of the SMBH.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find and information about the accretion disc radius.
In any case, it seems to me that the SMBH must increase its mass over time.
However, I wonder how it gets new matter.There could be two options:1. Some of the new formed particles drift inwards.2. In one of the article that I have found it was written that for any new particle that is created, there must be a negative particle. If that is correct, and assuming that all the positive particles are drifting outwards, than the negative must drift inwards.
In this case, the SMBH is a concentration of the negative particles. (I have no clue if that is correct...)
Let's look at another kind of SMBH - Quasar:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/31/universes-largest-black-hole-may-have-an-explanation-at-last/#52b55966fc55"The brightest, most luminous objects in the entire Universe are neither stars nor galaxies, but quasars, like S5 0014+81."
Without the gas cloud there is no new born stars. Without stars there is no galaxy.
Quote from: Halc on 27/01/2019 14:58:03QuoteThey're actually on course for collision in 2.5 billion years, but that's according to those scientists who obviously just make stuff upNo, this is incorrect.They are quite close to each other, but they are drifting away from each other.
QuoteThey're actually on course for collision in 2.5 billion years, but that's according to those scientists who obviously just make stuff up
However, both of them are moving in our direction. So the 2.5 Billion is the requested time for the collision with the Milky way.
I don't see any problem with that.Let's assume that it takes 10 Million years to set a star in a gas cloud, and in this time frame the gas cloud had increased its radius by 10%In this case, this gas cloud will set new star and planets