0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Then show me with the above example. You disagree because you haven't tried it and verified that your idea predicts different motion than does Newton's laws.
Quote from: Halc on 22/02/2019 20:33:50Then show me with the above example. You disagree because you haven't tried it and verified that your idea predicts different motion than does Newton's laws.With Pleasure:Please look at the following article:
However, it is quite clear to me that you are going to reject also this evidence.
So, what is your mission?
Why don't you even try to understand the deep explanation which I have offered?
Why do you constantly reject any explanation, example, evidence and article which I have offered so far?
Why don't you answer my questions about the problems in using the dark matter concept?
So far I have introduced just the first steps from the whole theory.
Unfortunately, you force me to explain the same issue again and again and therefore we can't move on.
Hence - Do you have real willing to open your mind and heart to this breakthrough understanding?
Without it, we won't be able to move forward.
Where is the VHP of each object in the example, and how does an object's motion relate to that of its VHP?
Quote from: Halc on 23/02/2019 14:01:10Where is the VHP of each object in the example, and how does an object's motion relate to that of its VHP? Let's focus on VHP1.Based on Newton - it is not expected to see any wobbling activity during full orbital cycle (it could move in elliptical cycle - but not up and down from the orbital disc).
In your example there is no wobbling activity.
Newton didn't expect to see any wobbling activity.
Newton only focus on planets and moons and there is no wobbling activity in those systems.
I still see nothing in your post that helps me identify where the VHP is for any specific object, or how the motion of that object relates to the position of that VHP. You continue to evade the simplest question.
QuoteNewton didn't expect to see wobbling activity.He does if gravity is exerted by any other mass than the primary.
Newton didn't expect to see wobbling activity.
As you insist,
let's look at a simple orbital motion of three objects by wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem#/media/File:Three_body_problem_figure-8_orbit_animation.gifSo, we see a very nice motion. But there is no wobbling activity.
In order to understand the wobbling activity lets go back to our Sun.Please look at the green line ofhttps://www.quora.com/How-is-the-motion-of-stars-similar-to-the-motion-of-the-sunIt is stated:"But the stars and sun don't just orbit in a fixed plane like the planets orbit the sun. They have a slight up and down wavy motion while they move along their trajectory, like so"We see clearly that the sun is moving up and down in a sine wave while it orbits the center of the galaxy.
Let's look at the other nearby stars.it is stated:"Stars in the local solar neighborhood move randomly relative to one another" We see clearly that some goes up and other goes down.
It they will continue in that momentum, those stars should go upwards or downwards from the disc plane.
There are billions stars in the disc plane, how could it be that none of them continue with its momentum and move away from the disc plane?
Do you agree that this proves that all the nearby stars (and actally, all the stars in the disc plane) also "have a slight up and down wavy motion while they move along their trajectory"?
Please also look at the following diagram:http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpgWe see clearly that the sun orbits around some sort of center (VHP1) while this center orbits around the galaxy.
Why don't you agree with that?
You claim that Newton should support this wobbling motion.
So would you kindly explain what is the scource for this wobbling motion?
Why do they have a slight up and down wavy motion while they move along their trajectory?
How could it be that this motion is based Newton?
Can you please show me one example for that motion which had been certified by Newton?
Where is the other mass which is needed for that wobbling motion (without VHP1).
Why the stars do not continue with their momentum and move upwards or downwards from the disc plane?
QuoteWhy the stars do not continue with their momentum and move upwards or downwards from the disc plane?Because the disk pulls them back. If we're above the disk, then most of the stars are below us, pulling us downward. Those stars (including us) make up the disk. We don't hit the disk on the way through since the stars have space between them.
An apple falling to the ground.
Quote from: Halc on 24/02/2019 19:33:52You claim that: "Those stars (including us) make up the disk.
You claim that: "Those stars (including us) make up the disk.
So, let me start by asking: why all of those stars stay at the disc from the first stage?
What kind of force keeps them all in the disc?
Why just from the starting point of the Bar (at about 1KPC) to the edge of the spiral arms (at about 10KPC) there is a disc?
How could it be that in the bulge (less than 1KPC) stars do not orbit in a disc?
How could it be that all S stars which are located very close to the SMBH do not share the same orbital disc plane?
Why each S star sets its unique orbital disc plane although they are directly affected by the mighty gravity force of the SMBH?
Our scientists claim that the sun orbits around the center of the galaxy due to the dark matter:
Just think about the huge gravity force which is needed to keep the sun in his track around the center of the galaxy. It is also clear that most of the gravity force comes from the dark matter.Based on our scientists, the dark matter is not located at the disc itself.So, how could it be that the stars around us with almost neglected gravity force (comparing to the ultra high gravity force due to the dark matter) can hold each other at the same orbital disc plane?
The Sun is located at the Orion arm.The Orion Arm diameter is about 1,000KLYIn one hand our scientists claim that this arm is only a density wave. So, there are no gravity force connections between the stars.
However, now you claim that those stars pull back any star that is moving too high or too low from the disc plane.How could it be? don't you see a contradiction?If it is gravity - Can you please explain how the gravity force pulls back any star which goes too high above the disc or too low below the disc??
You claim that it pull back - but in reality it works like a spring. Up and down Up and down in a constant movment.
How could it be?
If I understand it correctly, Newton gave us two options:1. Direct contact. For example:Quote from: HalcAn apple falling to the ground.
2. Orbital motion.
However, I have never heard about Newton gravity force which could force a star to move up and down continually without orbital motion.
Based on this theory, how could it be that the local gravity force due to local mass of nearby stars can have any sort of effect comparing to a gravity force due to 30 billion solar mass?
It seems to me as an elephant which is swinging nearby a mosquito, while the mosquito is sure that it is due to is mass. Is it real?
As for example -.Let's assume that somehow we can force all the stars in 1,000KLY segment in our spiral arm (by glue) at a fixed location in the segment.
Now, let's take a free star and push it to the most upwards side of the arm and release it.If I understand it correctly, the gravity force of the other stars will pull it back.
But it will have two options:One - To collide with one of the nearby stars
Two - start orbit around some sort of center of mass or around VHP which is a direct outcome of the stars in that segment.
Can you please explain how it could move up and down in a constant movement?
Now, let's assume that somehow the gravity force keeps it from moving to high from the most upwards side of the arm or too low from the most downwards side of the arm.
Why the same force can't hold it from moving away from the arm (too left or too right)?Why only Up/down and not right/left?
The disk is an object. The arms are not. The arms pull in both directions as they pass with a net effect of more or less zero. The disk never passes away. It's always there.
It is stated clearly:"While still rotating around the Milky Way's galactic center, these rogue stars also orbit around one another in a wobbly, spiral pattern that has only become more tangled over the past eon."Why can't we trust this verification of our scientists? It is stated clearly: "these rogue stars also orbit around one another in a wobbly, spiral pattern.."So, do you agree that our scientists see that while the stars in these rogue stars halo orbit around one another, they also move in a wobbly pattern?What is the meaning of that wobbly pattern?
Do you agree that it means that stars do not orbit exactly at the expected orbital cycle, but they move in a wobbly way around this expected orbital cycle?
I have offered also other evidences for that wobbling outside the disc -S2:https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fit-to-the-orbit-of-the-S2-star-fitted-data-and-relative-errors-are-in-blue-the-red_fig1_272845577It is stated:Fit to the orbit of the S2 star: fitted data and relative errors are in blue, the red line is the orbit. So we see clearly that the measured points are not located directly on the orbital path.
Our scientists call it "relative errors in blue". But those "errors" proves that our scientists see that S2 is wobbling!
Hence, it proves that the hypothetical idea about the Up/Down movement or wobbling due to the disc is incorrect as we see the wobbling activity also out the disc.
There are stars above and below the disc while there are also stars in between the arms.Actually, the width of the disc is dictated by the width of the arm.
In all the images of the milky way, we clearly see that most/all of the stars are located in the arms.
Do you agree that the arm is mainly made out of stars while the disc is mainly made out of arms?
Can you please explain what do you mean by: "The arms pull in both directions as they pass with a net effect of more or less zero."If I understand it correctly, you claim that stars can cross the arm as they move vertically to the disc, but they can't cross the arm as they move horizontally to the disc.
Hence, a star can't move horizontally and cross the arm as the stars in the Arm pull it back due to gravity force from the stars in the arm.
So, if the stars in the arm prevent from a star to cross the arm vertically (outwards or downwards) due to gravity force, than why the same gravity force (Due to the stars in the arm) can't prevent from a star to cross the arm horizontally?
With regards to the spiral galaxy structure.In the bulge - there is no disc. Each star orbits at a different orbital disc plane - (therefore we call it bulge...). This contradicts the solar orbital system, as all the planets orbit at the same disc plane - with the exception of Ploto.
I still don't understand why our scientists just focus on the disc and the arms?
Why they don't explain the Bulge and the Bar?
C. Just when they start with a disc it with other parameters including the radial velocity dispersion of the solar neighborhood, they have finelly got the spiral arms.
They have actually proved that when they took a realistic starting point as spherical galaxies, they didn't get by the modeling the expected shape of spiral arms and disc.
D. After the Big bang, we didn't get any disc.So, they can't just start from the point where the disc is already there with all the requested velocities. This is an error by definition.
They have to show how long it takes from the Big bang moment to set all the requested stars in a spherical galaxies and from that point to the starting point of a very thin disc.
"Figure 5–20: A time sequence for the hot exponential disk with in the xy plane evolved with the Barnes-Hut N-body algorithm"
If in the following modeling 1 billion years is needed to set a spiral galaxy from thin disc, they have to add the requested time from the big bang.
I'm quite sure that they might find that even after 10 billion years no real spiral arm would be formed.Actually, this modeling proves that there is no way to get spiral arms galaxy directly from spherical galaxies.
This is evidence which proves that our scientists have a severe mistake in their understanding how the spiral galaxy had been evolved.
E. please look at:"Figure 5–21: A time sequence for the hot exponential disk with in the yz plane evolved with the Barnes-Hut N-body algorithm. The thickening caused by the random motion of stars can be seen" We see that the starting point is a very thin disc.After 1.02 Billion years the disc became quite thick.
Why they stopped after this moment?Why they didn't continue with the modeling?
I'm quite sure that after 13 billion years that disc will be so thick that we would see just a normal spherical galaxy.
This could prove that spiral galaxy might be converted over time into spherical galaxy but not vice versa.
QuoteIn all the images of the milky way, we clearly see that most/all of the stars are located in the arms.Yes, arms light up because more stars are there, but that doesn't make arms objects unless the motion of the stars is the same as the motion of the arms, and it isn't.
QuoteOur scientists call it "relative errors in blue". But those "errors" proves that our scientists see that S2 is wobbling!It is indeed wobbling. It's not in empty space after all. It just doesn't have a regular one like it would if it orbited some companion. It has no VHP.
QuoteDo you agree that it means that stars do not orbit exactly at the expected orbital cycle, but they move in a wobbly way around this expected orbital cycle?A 'wobbly' way is the expected cycle. We're not in empty space so nobody expects our path to be a nice clean circle or something.
QuoteHence, it proves that the hypothetical idea about the Up/Down movement or wobbling due to the disc is incorrect as we see the wobbling activity also out the disc.What happens somewhere not in the disk is no evidence whatsoever about the dynamics of the disk.
QuoteWhy each S star sets its unique orbital disc plane although they are directly affected by the mighty gravity force of the SMBH?The SMBH is not capable of altering the orientation of the orbital axis of a moving object.
Dear HalcYou have chosen to reject all the evidences which I have offered.It seems to me that even if Newton was standing next to me and fully support my message - you would still reject any idea which contradicts the current mean stream which you fully support.
So, it is quite clear to me that whatever I will say you would reject.
The assumption that - The motion of the stars isn't the same as the motion of the arms, is absolutely incorrect!!!I have deeply explained how it really works.
I have introduced again and again the following image, but you have chosen to ignore that real image/evidence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#/media/File:Milky_Way_Arms.svg
It shows that based on our verifications all/most of the stars in the milky way disc are located at the arms.
"Outside the gravitational influence of the Galactic bars, the structure of the interstellar medium and stars in the disk of the Milky Way is organized into four spiral arms.[113] Spiral arms typically contain a higher density of interstellar gas and dust than the Galactic average as well as a greater concentration of star formation, as traced by H II regions[114][115] and molecular clouds.[116]" What does it mean "higher density of interstellar gas and dust" in the following statement"?
Where are all of those nearby interstellar gas and dust?
If we look nearby, we only see G-type stars.Why is it?
If I understand correctly - there is only one nubila in the whole Orion arm.
Don't forget that in the simulation our scientists are using stars!
So, please don't speak about interstellar gas and dust just to confuse us - speak about G-type stars (as you are using them in the simulation).
Now, let's try to verify the density of those stars.In the following article it is stated:http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm"As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol. A comparison of the density of G-type stars between the two volumes of space indicates that the outer spherical shell has around 100 percent of the spatial density of known G-type stars as the inner spherical volume, which suggests that astronomers have identified the great majority of the G-type stars that are actually located within 100 ly of Sol, assuming the same spatial distribution in the Solar neighborhood".So we know the density of G-type stars in a 50 LY volume: "Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years".That fully meets by 100% the G-type stars density expectation at 50 and 100 light-years volume: "while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years"That shows the G-type stars density at the Orion arm (There are 448 + 64 = 512 G -type stars in a 100LY around the Sun)
However, what is the G-type stars density at the same volume (100LY) between the orion arm and the next nearby arm?Is it only 400, 200, 100 or just Zero?
I'm sure by 100% that there are big areas between the arms without even a single star.
That is a direct outcome from my theory.
So, if that is correct, my theory is also correct.
Thanks So you agree that at least S2 is wobbling.
However, why are you so sure that: "It's not in empty space after all. It just doesn't have a regular one like it would if it orbited some companion?
Once you agree that stars are wobbling - you actually say that you can't explain it by normal orbital cycle.
What is the amplitude of that wobbling activity of the sun?I'm quite sure that it is less than 100Ly or even 50LY.
Hence, if there is only one star that doesn't cross the center of the galaxy, than it is another solid proof that the stars do not wobble due to the disc.
If we look at the solar system, and monitor the moon cycle, while the earth is dark, we should see the it is wobbling as it orbits around the sun.
So, the only real explanation for that wobbling is a Virtual host point - VHP.
Let's try to have better understanding on Newton gravity force.The formula is:F= G M m / R^2
How based on this formula we can justify a stable wobbling activity around the disc plane of the galaxy?
If M represents the mass of the disc, than by definition the Sun must orbit around that mass in order to set a stable wobbling activity.
It cant just move up/down. There is no formula by Newton for up/down.
In the same token they could call it "Abra Cadabra"I have an excellent prove for Abra cadabra - We can claim in one hand that the orbital velocity of the objects around the galaxy is due to "Abra cadabra" while the proof for "Abra cadabra" is the orbital velocity of the objects around the galaxy.
In the old time - (before Newton) people could claim that the Apple is falling down due to "Abra Cadabra", while the proof for "Abra Cadabra" is that the apple is falling down.
So, let's try to understand how this "Abra cadabra" or Dark Matter works in order to keep the stars at the same/similar velocities at while the radius is changing:The formula for velocity is:V^2 = G M / RIn order to keep the velocity at the same level at different radius, our scientists believe that they can increase the mass in the orbital sphere by dark matter.
The mass in the sphere is represented by its volumeVolume = 4 π R^3 /3So, if the density of dark matter is ρ, while the impact of the real matter is neglected, than the total mass in the orbital sphere should be as follow:M = ρ * Volume
M = ρ * 4 π R^3 /3 = 4/3 * π * ρ * R^3So, we find that the mass in a sphere is a function of R^3 while V^2 is a function of 1/RV^2 = M G / R = (4/3 * π * ρ * R^3) G / R = (4/3 * π * G) * ρ * R^3/ R = (4/3 * π * G) * ρ * R^2
Hence,The only way to set the velocity at the same/similar value at different R is by setting the following value to constant
So, if we want to see a same velocity at different radius, the dark matter density (ρ) must be function of 1/R^2.
Hence, as we move closer to the center the density should be higher.
But, we know that the spiral arms starts only from 3KPC (which is about 10,000Ly). Why is it?Based on that dark matter density, it should be higher as we move inwards to the center.
How could it be that at the bulge - a distance lower than 1KPC (3,300LY) there is no orbital disc
Why the galaxy will set that kind of none linear dark matter density just to justify our none realistic ideas?
It is part of the spiral arm and it moves with it in a constant velocity (more or less) as long as it is located at the arm.
This is real science!
Quote from: HalcQuoteWhy each S star sets its unique orbital disc plane although they are directly affected by the mighty gravity force of the SMBH?The SMBH is not capable of altering the orientation of the orbital axis of a moving object.Good Answer.But why is it?Let's look at our Sun.All the stars are orbiting at the same orbital disc plane with one clear exception - Ploto.
It is the further most planet/(object - if you wish) from the Sun and we see clearly that it doesn't share the same orbital disc plane as all the other.
However, its Aphelion is 49.305 AU, while it's Perihelion is 29.658 AU. This is the highest Aphelion/Perihelion ratio (for planet) in the solar system. So, it's orbital path is very elliptical (comparing to all the others).
Therefore, it actually cross the orbital disc plane of all the others.
If each star is orbiting around the center and facing a direct gravity force from the orbital sphere (including dark matter - as our scientists say),
it is expected to see that some of them gets a very elliptical path and cross the orbital disc.Do we see any star that does so?
Do we see even one single star that in moving in the direction of the disc?
But please - Not a star which is located far above or far below the disc.
Please - only a star that is quite close to the disc and approaching the disc.
For example - if the width of the disc/arm near the sun is 1,000KLY, do we see any star at 4000KLY to 2000KLY above or below us that is moving in the direction of the disc?
I'm sure by 100% that we won't find there even a single star which is moving in the direction of the disc.
If there is a star, this star should fly at ultra high speed away from the discThis is a solid prove that there is a fatal error with the current concept.
QuoteIf there is a star, this star should fly at ultra high speed away from the discThis is a solid prove that there is a fatal error with the current concept.If they all do that, it would indeed indicate a problem with the current concepts.
I think the article says "New class" which implies these stars are doing something the typical ones don't.
I am unaware of any one particular model that is considered the current concept theory. That there are multiple models, none of which predict what we see exactly, means that there are problems.
I do not know of this 'current concept' theory, but the various models do not correspond well to reality, so no one theory is billed as the all encompassing correct one. I can agree to that.
QuoteCan I ask you for one moment to forget all the "current concept ideas" and validate my theory only based on evidences, real laws and basic common sense?I cannot validate what you don't have. I tried real hard to make a simple case, but even that was too much.
Can I ask you for one moment to forget all the "current concept ideas" and validate my theory only based on evidences, real laws and basic common sense?
I can't do that with your idea since there is nothing from which predictions can be made. I cannot model its behavior.
So you agree that there are problem with any current concept/modeling/theory which we have.
Our scientists assume that there is dark matter although they couldn't prove it by any real measurements.
So as they expecting you to agree with the dark matter Idea, I would like to ask you to accept the following elements.Please don't criticize any element, just accept them as is.Based on those elements, I will explain the theory and then you can try to validate my whole theory and see if the modeling is working.
So, you are requested to accept the following elements as follow:1. Newton formula for gravity force is: F=GMm/R^22. If star orbits around a host (and assuming that there is no direct extra gravity force on that star) - there is no way for it to increase its gravity force.
Therefore, star would never ever drifts inwards. Actually, it should drift outwards. On every orbital cycle the orbital radius -R is increasing by definition (even if this increasing can be represented by less than Pico mm per cycle). We had long discussion on that and I'm not sure that I can prove it. But as you can't disprove it, let's assume that this statement is correct. This is a key point in my theory and I ask you to accept it as is3.Virtual Host Point (VPH) - We had also long discussion on VPH. You don't agree with that idea. it is clear to me. However, this is very important point in my theory. 4. Accretion disc - The accretion disc is actually Excretion disc. The SMBH creates new Atoms and molecular in that disc.The Ultra high gravity force of the SMBH is converted into small cells of energy that we call Atoms and Molecular. Therefore - Atom is a cell of energy by definition5. Gravity works locally.6. Spiral arm is an object.That's all I ask you to accept.
However, if my theory (which is based on those elements) meets our observation by 100% than the theory & those elements are fully correct..
Agree?
QuoteHowever, if my theory (which is based on those elements) meets our observation by 100% than the theory & those elements are fully correct. If there is a theory, yes.
However, if my theory (which is based on those elements) meets our observation by 100% than the theory & those elements are fully correct.
OK, point 1 is just a statement about what Newton said. You're perhaps not actually saying that gravity force obeys that function, just that Newton said it does. In that case, I'm not sure why it needs to be one of your 6 points.
1 and 5 are in direct conflict with each other. The rest seem to be sufficiently undefined that they're not wrong, but I think you need to reword either 1 or 5 so they're mutually consistent.
So, let me start with 5:Gravity Works LocallyI think that this is the MOST important one.In order to understand it, we have to look at our solar system.Based on Newton formula for gravity force: F=GMm/R^2
The gravity force between the Sun/moon is stronger by more than a double than the Earth/moon gravity force.Even so, the moon orbits around the Earth instead of directly around the Sun.
This is a current status.Of course, the Sun has a tidal impact, but still with all its higher gravity force, it can't disconnect the moon from the Earth.When I thought about it, I have asked myself two questions:1. Why the moon had chosen to orbit around the Earth instead of around the Sun?2. How could it be that the sun with more than a double gravity force can't disconnect the moon from the Earth?The answers are quite simple:1. ... In the first day of the solar system, the gravity force of the Earth/Moon was much stronger than the Sun/Moon.2. There is an hysteresis phenomenon also in gravity.So, as the moon is already connected by gravity to the Earth, an increased external gravity force (from the sun) can't directly disconnect that connection.It should be quite higher to achieve this goal.I really don't know to which level of hysteresis it must get before breaking down the local gravity connection.That gravity Hysteresis is a key element in our discussion.It shows that each object holds its current local gravity bonding and goes with it where ever it goes.Therefore, if the sun is orbiting around a local host (even if it is only a virtual host) it will keep with this local orbital connection as long as the gravity hysteresis will keep on.Hence - Gravity works locally.Is it clear?
Based on my theory - (which I will introduce soon)
I seriously doubt that.
I see no contradiction in what you've said.
Gravity seems to have memory, and play favorites with things to which it attached in the past.
Not saying anything in your post is wrong except that mention of 'soon'
What makes the radius increase?
Only if tΔ is always positive, and the moon's tΔ is currently negative, making its closes approach on March 19.