[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.)

It seems to me that you have missed the key point of this idea.
Please look again at the following image:
https://www.space.com/10532-earth-biodiversity-pattern-trace-bobbing-solar-system-path.html
Please try to focus on the dashed white line Vs the green line.
Do you agree that the green line is longer in its distance than the dashed White line?
It is clear that in order to set one full orbital cycle around the galaxy, an object at the green line must move faster than an object on the dashed white line.
So, do you understand by now why the virtual host velocity (dashed line) is lower than the sun actual orbital velocity (green line)?
Therefore, if the green line represents the actual orbital velocity of the sun - Let's assume that it is 220 Km/s, than the dashed white line, which represents the orbital motion of the Sun virtual host around the galaxy, must be lower than 220 Km/s.

[captcass]

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.

You are also not visualizing the evolution of the continuum properly. All events are acted on by two directions of evolution, the Fundamental, in situ, evolution and the Gravitational, down gradient, evolution.   

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Sorry
I'm not going to start the whole discussion about this key idea with you.
In this discussion we assume that:
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 (Dashed white line)
2. The orbital motion radius is increasing over time.
Please see reply no. 172

[captcass]

Dave, I suggest you just ignore these posts by captcass.

Sorry, I don't think that is wise. From the outset of this thread you all have been using, and trying to modify, Newtonian formulas to come up with your breakthrough. The trouble is, Newtonian formulas only approximate what General Relativity describes, which is the apparent evolution of events in the continuum due to Lorentz contractions in both time and space. People still largely use the Newtonian formulas because the Relativity formulas quickly become very complex when more than 1 body is considered. If you say you can modify the Newtonian formulas, then you are saying you can modify relativity, too. Can you demonstrate how that might work?
(I actually do this by deriving the Hubble Shift from a 2.2686"10^-18 s/s acceleration in the rate of proper time that is then added to Einstein's Tensor to eliminate singularities, Big Bangs, and infinitely accelerating expansions of the universe in the "Is the Hubble Shift Due to Time Dilation" thread). .
Any discussion of gravity that does not consider the Lorentz contractions, especially the time dilation, which Einstein calls his "energy components", is off the mark. You are talking about Newtonian "forces" that do not exist. It is all about the evolution of events within the continuum, not the motion of particles "through" a pre-existing space.
That being said, I will leave you all to your debate unless someone wants to ask me a question about anything I've said here. I don't want to hijack a thread, but as I explain galactic rotation velocities in my paper, as copied above, I felt it was on topic. "On topic" doesn't always mean "on the same track" and I can see that.   

[captcass]

I see you invoking references to the CMB which is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of the dynamics of a local system.

I did that to illustrate the relative nature of apparent velocity and motion. But what I am trying to contribute does not really fit the thread so I will bow out.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

I wonder why our scientists assume that it has maximum acceleration at the peaks. Why not a sin wave?
Any idea?.
Somehow, it also seems to me that the 62 Million years per cycle it too long.
Just a brief calculation.

The nearest star is about 4 LY away from us.
Its quite clear to me that the maximal orbital radius around the virtual host must be significantly lower than that.
However, just for the calculation, let's assume that the radius is 1LY (9.461e+12 Km)
P = 2 * 3.14 * r = 6.28 * 9.461e+12 Km = 59.425 10^12 Km
In one year there is = 31536000 sec.
In the article it is stated that the orbital speed around the orbital motion (which is the virtual host) is 7 to 20 Km/s.
Just to make it easy, let's use an average speed of 10 Km/s (in a pure cycle orbit).
At a speed of 10 Km/s we can cross in one year:
L = 10 * 31536000 = 315.36 10 ^ 6 Km/Year
T = P/L = 59.425 10^12 Km / 315.36 10 ^ 6 Km/Year = 1.88 10^5 = 188,000 year
So, in order to set a full 1 LY cycle at 10Km/s, 188,000 years are needed.
Hence, how do they have got the idea for 62 Million years per cycle?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

It seems that you insist to criticize the key elements of my theory.
I didn't call it Host point. The correct name is "virtual host point".
So, it is a virtual point. Therefore, we don't expect to see any real mass at that Sun' "host point".
Please read again the following key elements:
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 (Dashed white line)
2. The orbital motion radius is increasing over time.

Why do you keep criticize those two key elements in my theory?
Please - let me introduce the whole theory based on the two key elements and then take a decision if you accept it or reject it. Please, don't criticize it before getting the whole information about the new 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 = 2
1 - 1 = 0
Unfortunately, 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?
In the same token.
You have agreed to accept those two key elements (just during the introduction process of the theory)
So, please would you kindly not criticize those elements any more.
Please - try to help me to find what is the outcome due to 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.
Actually, in the nature most of the orbital cycles are elliptical.
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?


 

[Halc]

Why do you keep criticize those two key elements in my theory?

I didn't criticize the two points.  I commented on the unlikely radius of your orbit about this VHP since you for the first time gave a number for it.  I didn't comment on the second of the two points at all.  I was hoping that by shutting up, you'd actually get to your 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 = 2
1 - 1 = 0
Unfortunately, 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?

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.  Eventually the child has no option but to comment more on the two points since that is all that has been presented.

If 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.

I think your problem is that your two points are not premises.  They are proposed effects (not even observations), and you need to come up with viable physics that explain those effects, not come up with implications of those effects.  I'm certain that your ideas might have the implication of a galaxy behaving this or that way, but without the physics to explain those effects, the effects are not grounded in reality.  Hence my questioning them so hard.  You've presented no new physics* to explain these two proposals, and the proposals seem to completely violate existing physics.

You're telling me that 1+1=7 and asking me to take that on faith.  Fine, but eventually you need to justify how 1+1 happens to work out to 7, otherwise the implications of that assumption are grounded in nonsense.

* OK, you've presented one new piece of physics: Selective gravity that decreases over time for certain objects, but remaining constant or increasing for others.  I could build an infinite energy generator with that sort of physics.

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.

Yes and yes.   But it seems there is no mass out that way, so what exactly pulls the sun into that orbital cycle if not mass?

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Actually, I do.

Many Thanks

Quote
If 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.

Yes. You are absolutely correct!
Sorry that I didn't understand correctly your reply.
This is a very important issue. However, in my theory we actually discuss on many objects.
I will explain it.

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.

Yes. That is correct.
I will shift gear.
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.
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.

[Halc]

So, as our Sun orbits around a virtual host point, every star must do so.

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 planets actually, Earth and Pluto excepted.  Earth's host point (called its barycenter in normal terminology) has mass present at it, while the barycenter of Pluto is in empty space.  The other planets don't really have a barycenter/virtual-host-point about which they have any sort of motion that could be described as orbital.

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.

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?

On the other hand - please see the second element:
2. The orbital motion radius is increasing over time.

For some things, but not others you've said.  Do unqualified objects not increase their orbits, such as small rocks or gas clouds and such?

Based 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.

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.

That actually sort of follow from your second point, at least when coupled with data with the mass density of the center of the galaxy.

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.

There is a formula for the temperature of the accretion disk at radius R which is something like
T(R) = √√[3GM⊕/8πσR³ (1−√(R_inner / R)) ]
Where G π and σ are constants, ⊕ is the accretion rate (which is actually an M with a dot over it, but I couldn't figure out how to write that).  R_inner is the Schwarzschild radius.  Plug your idea into that and you get a negative number for the temperature.  This is fine.  You've thrown all of known physics out the window, so there's no reason for that rule to have survived.

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

Sort of like hitting a boost pad in Mario Kart.  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?  That rotation curve has inner things moving pretty slow, and gradually moving up until maxing out at about 1KPC, after which the curve goes down again for a while.

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.

Each gas molecule has a virtual host point?

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.

Well, I've seen sites that describe the bar as a stellar nursery, so this seems plausible enough.

That is all for that step in my theory.
Please let me know if based on the two elements - you agree with the outcome.

The stuff-moving-out element indeed seems to require the generation of mass.  That seems to follow.
The virtual host point idea doesn't seem to contribute anything to the idea.  You haven't used that to explain anything, so I'm not sure why you have to posit this.  You describe the sun moving in a 1LY radius circle, but I see no purpose in proposing that it does that.  What gets explained by that?

Neither of the two elements seems related to this idea of magnetic fields propelling the new mass to, well, nonzero speeds.  Perhaps you need more than just the two elements.  Yes, the angular speed needs something to account for it, else you just get matter moving straight out from the center like lava from a volcano.
It seems that the speed boost from the magnetic field would account for matter moving away from the center, not something like negative gravity repulsing nearby stuff.

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?

Also, what happens to all this new matter after a long time?  Does it fade to nothing after a while, or does each galaxy grow indefinitely?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Halc
I really appreciate your excellent reply, and your important questions.
So, let me answer one by one.
 

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.
However, it is quite interest to know that the moon orbits around the Earth instead around the sun although the sun 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.html
If 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 Earth
The 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.

[Halc]

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.

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.
It is hard to figure out your VHP idea if the rules change from post to post, or in the same paragraph as has happened just above.

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.

Gravity 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.

This is very important evidence.
I wonder why our scientists had neglected this observation.

I'm sorry, but I didn't get exactly which observation was neglected by scientists.  All the numbers I quoted come from those scientists, and you didn't actually quote any numbers at all, let along ones that are different than what the scientists noticed.

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."

The word is used more in molecular changes than macroscopic history.  The orientation of dipoles on the seabed floor is considered hysteresis, while the nice crater in Arizona is not, despite both of them very much being a state that depends on the history of the system.

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.

How very biblical.

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.html
If 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."

They actually use analysis of history in doing this sort of work, so yes, it would be interesting to see you use it yourself to demonstrate this new assertion.

In any case, all the rocky planets and moons were too small to hold the gas Atoms.

If Earth and moon were 50 times larger on that first day, they would touch and be one thing, not two.

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 Earth
The 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.

It seems to be in one piece to me.  Or 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.

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.

If matter doesn't have DNA, then how can it all carry the same DNA?

My comment on all this seems to be that I don't see how any of this follows from or depends on your two primary points about VHP and stuff drifting away from gravitational sources.
You said you are addressing my questions one at a time, and this post started as the answer to my question about which objects have VHP's and which don't.  But none of this really discusses that topic except the first few lines which now says that the sun doesn't need one now, in contrast to your prior posts.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

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?

All the stars in the galaxy orbit around some virtual host point.
This host point orbits around the galaxy.
So, the stars wobble (sort of like the green sin wave), however, the virtual host point which show the orbital motion, moves at a fixed distance from the galactic disc.
If we will compare the distance between any two nearby virtual points over time (while they are at the same siral arm), we should see that the distance between the two is fixed. Therefore, the relative speed between any two nearby stars should be Zero (or almost zero).

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?

I do not understand the question.
Would you kindly explain the question.

Quote
Based 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.

As I have stated, not real moons means a broken objects.
I would assume that a broken object by definition is asteroid (even if we call it moon).
So, if the astroide is close enough to the host, it will move inwards and eventually it should collide with the host.
We must find the correct formula which shows the drifting direction over time.
In any case, as I have stated, all Stars, Planets and real moons must drift outwards.

There is a formula for the temperature of the accretion disk at radius R which is something like
T(R) = √√[3GM⊕/8πσR³ (1−√(Rinner / R)) ]

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.
 

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?

Good question.
I also think that it must be symmetrical.
So, I assume that the new born molecular are ejected upwards and downward (with regards to the galactic plane) due to the magnetic field.
I have no idea at what radius the magnetic field starts to work.

Each 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.
However, not all the gas in the cloud is used for the new stars forming activity.
The leftover of the gas cloud is ejected from the disc plane of the galaxy.
We see it clearly in the following example:
https://www.universetoday.com/102011/hydrogen-clouds-discovered-between-andromeda-and-triangulum-galaxies/
Hydrogen Clouds Discovered Between Andromeda And Triangulum Galaxies.
Those are two spiral galaxies.
Andromeda is the mother galaxy of Triangulum.
Triangulum had started as a small black hole at the center of Andromeda.
As it drifts outwards from Andromeda center (with all the other stars) it starts to create its own new mass.
I will explain later on how this activity impacts our observable universe.
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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Sorry if I was not clear.
The Sun orbits around a virtual host point. But there is no need for host point in the solar system.
Therefore, all the planets and moons orbit around real objects.
I have no clue if the orbital radius around the VHP is 1 light year or 100 Light years.
The main idea was that 64 Million years for one orbital cycle of the Sun around that VHP is too long (Based on my understanding).

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.

Yes, the whole idea is based on center of mass of multi-star solar systems.
However, there are two main issues to remember:
1. Each star orbits around a virtual host center. This is a gift that each star gets when it had been formed at the gas cloud. So, the center of mass of multi-star solar systems is actually a center of the Virtual host points of all the other solar/stars systems. Therefore, when we set a calculation we actually should ignore the current location of the star itself, but focus on it's virtual host point which is represented by the white dashed line (It is also called the Star motion around the galaxy).
2. This center of mass (of the entire nearby virtual host points) is working under the impact of the galaxy' gravity. It is quite complicate, as at different segments of the galaxy it has different gravity forces. I will explain it later on.

Quote
Gravity 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.

You miss the whole point.
The idea is as follow:
let's assume that we break out the Moon/Earth orbital system.
Let's give the moon the possibility to chose around which one it prefers to orbit.
Under the current conditions the gravity force of the Sun/moon is twice stronger than the earth/moon.
Therefore, it is clear to me that it should chose to orbit around the Sun instead of around the moon.
However, the moon orbits around the Earth as in early time when the Moon and the earth were gas objects and the whole solar system were more concentrated, the gravity force between the Earth/moon was higher than the Moon Sun gravity force.
Is it clear?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Yes. That is correct!

[Halc]

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.

This host point orbits around the galaxy.

You didn't really answer my question.  OK, the VHP orbits around the galaxy.  Where does 'amplitude' come into that?  An orbit doesn't have an amplitude.  The star might have one, the amplitude being its distance from its host point, but how does the VHP have an amplitude?
Just trying to understand your terminology.

In any case, as I have stated, all Stars, Planets and real moons must drift outwards.

Why is Earth not drifting measurably outward?

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.

No scientist would assert that they are forcing the universe to do anything.  The universe is forcing them to find mathematics that describes it.  I've seen no mathematics from you, so they're doing much better so far.

Sorry. This is a severe mistake.
If they want to prove something, they have to use real formula by Newton, Kepler or Eisenstein.

But you've discarded the works of all three of these people.  Their mathematics forbid the sort of thing you are describing.  Every one of the conservation laws that derive from their mathematics is violated.  If you're going to going to appeal to these people, your theory needs to conform to the physics that stems from their work.
I've been quiet about the blatant violations because I've assumed that your model would have new mathematics, but here you are suddenly appealing to established views instead of this new one you are pushing.

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?

Good question.
I also think that it must be symmetrical.

I said it was, but seemingly only rotational symmetry.  If it had any kind of mirror symmetry, material would be accelerated equally in both directions, which would at least conserve angular momentum.  Your idea has no angular momentum conservation.

I have no idea at what radius the magnetic field starts to work.

So much for the good question...

Each 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.

I can concentrate gas by squeezing it in a tube.  I can light a match this way if I squeeze hard on it.  No virtual host point needed, just compressing force.  A virtual host point I suppose would make a gas atom go in a circle, but I don't see how that helps with their being more concentrated since being a circle, the atom will just come back to its original point, or even further out since everything drifts away over time, which results in decreased concentration, not increased concentration.

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.

No they don't.  They drift away you said.  How can a star form if everything drifts away?

However, not all the gas in the cloud is used for the new stars forming activity.
The leftover of the gas cloud is ejected from the disc plane of the galaxy.
We see it clearly in the following example:
https://www.universetoday.com/102011/hydrogen-clouds-discovered-between-andromeda-and-triangulum-galaxies/
Hydrogen Clouds Discovered Between Andromeda And Triangulum Galaxies.
Those are two spiral galaxies.
Andromeda is the mother galaxy of Triangulum.
Triangulum had started as a small black hole at the center of Andromeda.
[/quote]So black holes can spawn not just new plasma material, but objects like new black holes??

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.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

SMBH

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?

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."
So, this SMBH (we call it quasar) has no galaxy.
It creates new matter and ejects it in a stream upwards and downwards as expected.
So it works perfectly as the SMBH of any spiral galaxy should work.
New matter is created at the accretion disc. As the new molecular drifts outwards they get to the magnetic shield around the accretion disc. The ultra high magnetic power blow it upwards and downwards.
It is also clear that those molecular fall back to the disc plane of the Quasar (outwards from the magnetic shield). However, somehow, they don't form the gas cloud. Without the gas cloud there is no new born stars. Without stars there is no galaxy.
So, this is a good example for a SMBH which generates new matter without having a real spiral galaxy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
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.
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

No, this is incorrect.
They are quite close to each other, but they are drifting away from each other. 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.

Quote
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.
No they don't.  They drift away you said.  How can a star form if everything drifts away?

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
Please also remember that the gas cloud itself is drifting away from the center.
So, it is clear that at some point of time the gas cloud (or the leftover from the gas cloud) will not be able to create any more stars and planets.
What is the problem with that ?

[Halc]

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.

Yes, that's how it's done in normal physics, but you've denied that when the scientists measure the mass of the galaxy using that exact method and got a mass much larger than all the material they've measured.  The scientists say there must be more mass they can't see, while you say they are using the wrong physics to calculate the mass.

Therefore, you don't know the mass of the SMBH using the speed of the material orbiting it, since you deny the validity of that method.  You need a new way of measuring the mass of an object.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find and information about the accretion disc radius.

It's not like it stops abruptly.  Technically, the whole galaxy is an accretion disk.  It just changes properties the closer to the gravity source it gets.

In any case, it seems to me that the SMBH must increase its mass over time.

You have it spewing matter out into the galaxy.  I'd think it that something that does that might be losing mass. I don't see how stuff falls in if the stuff is supposed to tend to drift away, not towards it.

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.

The negative particles are antimatter actually, yes.  If the antimatter falls in, the black hole actually gets smaller.  It's how Hawking radiation eventually evaporates any black hole given enough time, but I'm not sure of your idea has this sort of process in it.

In this case, the SMBH is a concentration of the negative particles. (I have no clue if that is correct...)

That's actually a way to solve it, if the black hole is antimatter, such radiation would increase the mass, not decrease it, assuming it makes sense for the anti-halves to tend to go in and not a random distribution.  Anyway, such radiation (change in mass) is greatest for the smallest black holes and slowest for the big ones.  Sgr-A might lose a few atoms per year via Hawking radiation. Maybe not even that fast.

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."

They're just young galaxies.  There are not any nearby because nothing nearby is that young.  Only looking waaay into the past do you see the initial formation processes of a galaxy.  Our own galaxy might have been a quasar at some point, but it was probably too small in its youth to be the sort of object they're looking at.  Those are massive objects that have formed what are the proper big galaxies we now see closer by.
This is not an expert statement.  It is just me spouting off at the mouth.  I know they've found black holes that are well of 100x the size of Sgr-A, and the formation of those would have generated the sort of light that you see in a quasar.

Without the gas cloud there is no new born stars. Without stars there is no galaxy.

You don't know how many stars it has.  Trying to spot one is like spotting a firefly sitting between a car's headlights.  These quasars are also way to far away to see individual stars, except when they go supernova.

[Halc]

Quote
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

No, this is incorrect.
They are quite close to each other, but they are drifting away from each other.

But accelerating inward, on schedule for a 2nd collision pass in 2.5 billion years. 

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.

Andromeda will takes its first pass in about 4 billion years, well after triangulum galaxy is well within Andromeda, and the 2nd about 2 billion years after that.  After that, you don't really count passes anymore, but it takes even longer for the process to finally finish and our SMBH is swallowed by a much larger one.
Not sure if you support that idea since these things are suppose to drift away, not be pulled in and combined.

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

Your gas cloud just got 33% less dense (33% increase of volume from a 10% increase in radius).  It would seem to require gas to be condensed to form stars, else they would already have been stars when the gas cloud was tighter.