[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

With Pleasure:
Please look at the following article:
https://www.livescience.com/63698-milky-way-spiral-wobble.html
It is stated:
"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."
So, this short description fully supports my theory. (Please focus only on what they see and ignore their none realistic explanation for that key evidence!)
It is stated: " these rogue stars also orbit around one another" - So as they orbit around one another they set a center of mass which I call it - VHP.
Hence, the example had been given by a solid verification of our scientists - as you have requested.
However, it is also stated: "these rogue stars also orbit around one another in a wobbly, spiral pattern".
What does it mean "Wobbly"?
Why the stars are wobbling?
This is a solid evidence to my explanation that any star in the galaxy orbits around its unique VHP1.
The wobbling activity is a direct outcome of VHP1!!!
This VHP1 is the first element for Newton activity in the galaxy.
The Sun is wobbling. I have already proved it by an article.
All the nearby stars are wobbling. S2 star in the center of the galaxy and many others are wobbling as I have proved by several articles.

However, it is quite clear to me that you are going to reject also this evidence.
So, what is your mission?
Do you really want to understand my message or do you just want to prove that whatever I say is incorrect?
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?
I have found the explanation for every bit in our spiral galaxy/observable universe/real universe without any need for dark matter or dark energy, as our universe is working according to very simple roles.
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?
Is there any chance for you to focus only on real evidences and verify how my explanation perfectly fits with those verifications/evidences?
Without it, we won't be able to move forward.

[Halc]

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.

With Pleasure:
Please look at the following article:

A diversion right out of the gate.  Nothing in any article is going to tell me how to determine the location of the VHPs in the simple example I provided, unless the article discusses your idea, which this one doesn't.
The origin is the common center of mass of the three.  I say this because I was doubtful that you are capable of working that out for yourself.
Is that the VHP of all 3 objects?  I ask because you say each object has its own, like they're in different places.
Given the location of the VHP, I can predict motion if I know how to compute the attraction between an object and its VHP.  You've not provided that either.  No website is going to give this answer because your idea is accepted on any website.

However, it is quite clear to me that you are going to reject also this evidence.

I don't deny that binary systems have stars that orbit each other.  But the site just doesn't answer the question I asked.  You have to answer it, because your physics is not discussed anywhere outside this very long topic which unfortunately has no actual theory described so far.  I am trying to get to the actual theory instead of just a list of anomalies that you claim will be solved.

So, what is your mission?

I want to know how your theory works.  I gave the most trivial example I can think of to make it easy for you.  But apparently you can't do it.  You have no actual theory.  Every question is met immediately with a diversion.

Why don't you even try to understand the deep explanation which I have offered?

You've never given a deep explanation.  If you had, I'd have been able to answer my question.

Why do you constantly reject any explanation, example, evidence and article which I have offered so far?

Those sites are not pushing your idea, so none of them help clarify your idea.

Why don't you answer my questions about the problems in using the dark matter concept?

You claim a solution to that problem, but without knowing your theory details, I cannot comment on how well it does that. 

So far I have introduced just the first steps from the whole theory.

You could not answer my question.  That seems to count as having provided a preface to the theory, but not even the first page of the actual theory.

Unfortunately, you force me to explain the same issue again and again and therefore we can't move on.

No!  Don't move on.  Answer the question!  Where is the VHP of each object in the example, and how does an object's motion relate to that of its VHP?  Newton provided answers like this, where there is no VHP and objects act on each other via force computed by GMm/r².  From that info alone I can compute the Newtonian motion of those 3 objects.  I want to do so with your rules, but I don't know them.  If the paths are different, then your theory is non-Newtonian.  This is OK.  Actual theories are out there (such as MoND, or Modified Newtonian Dynamics) which reject the above formula at certain scales in order to not have to posit dark matter.  The MoND thing looks nothing like what you are describing.

Hence - 
Do you have real willing to open your mind and heart to this breakthrough understanding?

I'm trying real hard, but you cannot answer the most trivial question, and as you say:

Without it, we won't be able to move forward.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Where 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).
We must distinguish between "orbit around one another" to "wobbling".
In the example that I have used it was stated:
"While still rotating around the Milky Way's galactic center, these rogue stars also orbit around one another in a wobbly, spiral pattern.."
So, when we focus on the message: "orbit around one another" this represents a simple Newton solution. In this case we can say that the stars orbit around some VHP. In the same token, in your example - the stars also orbit around each other - so we can also say that the stars orbit around some sort of VHP.
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.
However, in the example which I have offered it is specifically stated that the stars are wobbling!!!
This wobbling activity can only be found in Stars!!!
Our scientists don't understand the real impact of this wobbling activity.
I claim that this wobbling activity is the key element activity for our understanding. it highlights how gravity really works in our spiral galaxy.
The wobbling activity is a direct outcome of VHP1.
So, only if we see a wobbling activity, than we know that there is a VHP1.
You won't find it in any Sun/Planet/moon activity. Therefore, you won't expect to find it based on simple Newton law.
However - if you look at any star in the galaxy, you should find that it is wobbling.
Our Sun is wobbling, the nearby stars are wobbling, S2 is wobbling all S stars are wobbling, the stars in that Halo stars are wobbling ... and so on
How can we ignore that important evidence???.
As I have already explained, this VHP1 is a direct outcome from the creation of any new star in the galaxy.
Each star had been created in the core of gas cloud.
The creation of new star from the gas cloud is based on the huge gravity impact of the nearby SMBH.
I'm quite sure that if we set that gas cloud far away from the SMBH (or even far away from the galaxy) - this gas cloud will not be able to set any sort of new star forming activity.
During the crystallize process from dust/gas/molecular into star, I assume that each star must orbit around some virtual center (I call it VHP1). Therefore, this VHP1 is a direct outcome from the nearby SMBH gravity impact during the new star forming activity.
Please be aware, that each star also comes with Planets and moons. However, those objects orbits directly around the star. Therefore, none of them has VHP1.
So, as the star emerges from the gas cloud it also comes with an integrated unique VHP1.
I'm not sure that I have the tools to deeply explain how it really works and how the SMBH gravity force set this process.
However, the wobbling activity is a solid prove for the existence of VHP1.
In your example, there is no wobbling activity. Therefore this example is none relevant to our case.
Please remember - VHP1 only exists in wobbling activity..

[Halc]

Where 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.

How do you know this?  You've not said where the VHP is for any object.

Newton didn't expect to see any wobbling activity.

He does if gravity is exerted by any other mass than the primary.

Newton only focus on planets and moons and there is no wobbling activity in those systems.

This is utterly false.  There is no mention in his formulas for special treatment of planets and moons.  Mass is mass.

If it helps you, you can take the 3 objects in my example and designate them as moons or possibly planets.

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.

You do not have a theory at all.  How is your theory different than the ancient description that God is responsible for the motion of all seen objects?  Whatever you measure, God put it there.  There is no predictions, only declarations that whatever is seen is explained by the 'theory', which is that God is responsible for it.

The only difference between your theory and the God one is that the God one was quite accurate in making predictions.  The heliocentric models (things go around the sun, not the Earth) were resisted at first because their mathematical predictions were not as accurate as those make by a church with centuries of astronomers with tables and fudge factors.

Anyway, I see you taking this path.  "My theory, if it were ever to actually be spelled out, would account for everything we see, as long as it is in hindsight."  It cannot predict new things because without the actual meat of the theory, we can only guess how God wants the new thing to move.  The church for example would not be able to predict how the 3 objects in my example would move since it doesn't know God's intentions for those three objects.  Neither do you because you don't actually have a theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

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.gif
So, 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 of
https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-motion-of-stars-similar-to-the-motion-of-the-sun
It 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.
So, how can we explain this orbital motion?
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.jpg
We 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?
 

Newton didn't expect to see wobbling activity.

He does if gravity is exerted by any other mass than the primary.

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?

[Halc]

As you insist,

I was insisting you consider my simple example, and not some special case example you found on a website that doesn't support your view.  So you still have given me no clue as to how to figure out where a VHP is.

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.gif
So, we see a very nice motion. But there is no wobbling activity.

What do you mean by that??  Of course there is 'wobbling' activity.  If one of those objects was luminous, we'd see it wobbling vertically at twice the frequency and about a third the amplitude of the horizontal wobble, which would be a strange sight.  Such an object would not trace a clean ellipse around the galaxy.

That is a weird special case which is barely stable, and my example was not.  But it is a nice example of a wobbling activity without a VHP.  There just isn't one.  There is a center of gravity of course, but none of the objects orbit it, and when one is located at it, acceleration is at zero, not the maximum value as you would expect when an object gets closest to the virtual point about which it orbits.

It seems funny that you would link to an example that refutes what you've been asserting.

In order to understand the wobbling activity lets go back to our Sun.
Please look at the green line of
https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-motion-of-stars-similar-to-the-motion-of-the-sun
It 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.

Yes, that near-sine-wave motion is a easily derived from a mass effected by a planar arrangement of mass.  A solar system has almost all its mass at the center leaving little mass to have a wobble like that which has a period of anything on the order of the period of orbit.  Pluto is out of the plane and has such a wobble which manifests itself as precession since the wobble period is far long than its year.

Anyway, we do not 'see clearly' anything, because the green line in that picture is massively out of scale (so that you can distinguish it from a clean elliptical orbit).  It shows a velocity perpendicular to the plane that is the same order as the orbital velocity instead of about 2-3% of it as it should, and it shows a period that is also 4 times the actual measured period.  Your biocab link was even worse in both respects, and was actually factually wrong, not just out of scale.

So yes, this sine-motion is expected from a planar arrangement of mass, which (locally) describes the galatic disk.  The mass certainly isn't at the center like it is with our solar system.  The SMBH masses less than 0.05% of the mass of the galaxy, the vast majority taking a planar arrangement.
There is a VHP (your term) of sorts which is where the sun crosses the plane twice each wave.  It doesn't orbit that point, but just moves back and forth straight across it as would any object pulled by a planar arrangement of mass.  And yes, it is the VHP that moves at perhaps 230 km/sec (per that site) and the solar system itself at maybe 0.04% faster than that as it follows that longer green line.
They show the solar system following a perfectly circular orbit, but our orbit about the galaxy does have some eccentricity, probably around 0.05.  The path around the galaxy certainly isn't circular or even elliptic since it gets massive perturbations from moving through denser concentrations of matter in its travels, so the eccentricity value is fairly meaningless.  I'm just saying it isn't a nice orbit with constant speed like the simplified pictures show.

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.

No velocities are given, so this isn't clear at all.  The arrows are relative to the sun, not relative to the galactic disk, and they're all the same size, meaning it isn't depicting vectors.  It is just a crude picture trying to illustrate those words.  Maybe they're all moving up, just some less than us, and some more.

They might be trivial differences while we (the other stars) move as a group around the galaxy, or they might be significant differences in which case the nearby stars just happen to be nearby now, but we'll never see them close again.

It they will continue in that momentum, those stars should go upwards or downwards from the disc plane.

Presumably, yes.  Some of them might be stationary relative to the disk, and hence not have that sort of motion.  The site hardly gives any data on this.

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?

They almost all move relative to the plane in some way, and they (almost) all come back just like we do.  The plane is the average, not a clump of different stuff that doesn't have this motion.  Sure, some stars experience a close encounter with something big and get flung out of the disk, becoming a halo object of sorts.

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"?

Statistics says it is highly improbable that a random number is exactly zero, so this would suggest that a given moment, no star has zero motion perpendicular to the plane.  Even if it did, one moment later, gravity of some nearby object would alter this value to something nonzero.  None of the text above proves this, no.  I reached for statistics to agree with the statement.  Point is, some have more than others.  Even the sun has zero motion perpendicular to the plane about 5-6 times per lap around the galaxy, but that zero value lasts but an instant.

Please also look at the following diagram:
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
We see clearly that the sun orbits around some sort of center (VHP1) while this center orbits around the galaxy.

If that picture was even remotely accurate, then I suppose it would.  These guys are not astronomers or physicists.  They're biologists.  I don't go to astronomers to ask my biology questions either.

Why don't you agree with that?

The solar system does not move like that.  For one, we'd have to move at about 1500 km/sec to follow that blue line and still keep up with the 217 km/sec grey line.  The blue line is around 7 times longer than the grey line, but labelled with much lower speeds and no mention of periods.

You claim that Newton should support this wobbling motion.

Of course.  His laws demand it if there is mass acting on the thing that wobbles.  The moon's path wobbles around the sun because Earth is there yanking back and forth once a month, just as Newton describes.

So would you kindly explain what is the scource for this wobbling motion?

Mass of something other than itself or its primary.  Any third body or cloud or disk or whatever.

Why do they have a slight up and down wavy motion while they move along their trajectory?

Any object will have this motion relative to a planar arrangement of mass.

How could it be that this motion is based Newton?

Because his laws describe it perfectly, and he did it first, so his name got attributed to those laws.  A plane of stuff is going to attract.  You can't go around it, so you get pulled straight towards it and carry right through to the other side after which the plane pulls you the other way.  It's pretty easy to work out.

Can you please show me one example for that motion which had been certified by Newton?

An apple falling to the ground.

Where is the other mass which is needed for that wobbling motion (without VHP1).

The disk is the other mass.

Why 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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why 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.

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:
http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html
"The radius of the sun's orbit is about 2.5x1017 km, so the total mass of dark matter within that orbit is 6x1040 kg. This is the mass of 3x1010 (30 billion) stars like the sun! The entire galaxy only contains ~100 billion stars, so the dark matter does have a significant effect on the sun's orbit through the galaxy. For objects farther out near the edge of the galaxy, the dark matter is actually the main thing keeping them in their orbits. This is more or less how dark matter was discovered by astronomer Vera Rubin and others: the orbital speeds of galactic stars and gas clouds don't match our expectations from the visible 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?
What kind of force hold all the stars in the disc?
The Sun is located at the Orion arm.
The Orion Arm diameter is about 1,000KLY
In 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?
What kind of power/force do they use in order to pull each other back?
Is it gravity force or some other force?
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:

An 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?
How could it be that gravity acts like a spring?
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?

[Halc]

You claim that: "Those stars (including us) make up the disk.

Stars, gas, planets, screwdrivers, etc.  Yes.  The disk is made of stuff.

So, let me start by asking: why all of those stars stay at the disc from the first stage?

Not all do.  Some get thrown out, but that takes effort, some outside force.

What kind of force keeps them all in the disc?

Gravity.  The list of forces isn't long, even if you are making up new ones.

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?

The disk goes further out than that, but sure.  One might consider stuff closer than 1kpc as well.  It doesn't have an abrupt start or end.

How could it be that in the bulge (less than 1KPC) stars do not orbit in a disc?

Anything that orbits does so in more or less a plane.  The orbit of no single object can be described as a disk.  A disk is a collection of material flattened by mutual angular momentum.

How could it be that all S stars which are located very close to the SMBH do not share the same orbital disc plane?

I'm no expert, but I imagine that the close objects have a point mass around which they might orbit.  The solar system does not.  That explains an orbital path as opposed to a more characteristic disk path, but not so much the orbital plane.  I suspect that planar objects are in the plane because they've not been knocked out of it.  Those objects or gas clouds that have acquire random trajectories that take some of them by chance very close to the center of the galaxy where they take up a new orbit in the new plane into which they were deflected.

Why 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.

Our scientists claim that the sun orbits around the center of the galaxy due to the dark matter:

I find that wording misleading in this context, but the context of the page is different.  Keep that in mind. I would say the sun loosely orbits the galaxy, not the center of the galaxy since, unlike any planet, the vast majority of the forces acting on us come from places other than the center.  About 99.9% of the solar system mass is at the center, but less than 1% in the case of the galaxy.  You just can't compare orbital mechanics between the two.

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?

Dark matter has no more gravity force than regular matter.  There are not different kinds of gravity.  A KG of dark matter exerts the same gravitational force as a KG rock or a KG black hole.
Dark matter (at least WIMP dark matter, not so much the MACHO parts) is not subject to friction like gas clouds are, so it doesn't tend to flatten into a disk just because it has angular momentum.  So it makes sense that it isn't concentrated in a disk like the interactive matter tends to do.

The Sun is located at the Orion arm.
The Orion Arm diameter is about 1,000KLY
In one hand our scientists claim that this arm is only a density wave. So, there are no gravity force connections between the stars.

The stars very much attract each other by gravity.  Newton's laws demand this.  If the arm is a density wave, then it attracts stuff more than the less dense places between the arms, but as the density wave moves on, it doesn't carry the solar system or anything else with it.  The density waves pass through us, meaning the sky is more cluttered when we're in a proper arm than when we're in the low-density regions between the arms, just like a leaf in the water rising up and down with the waves without moving along with them.

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??

I see no relevance to the arms.  Suddenly you're talking about the disk.  If the disk is below you, wouldn't you expect all that mass to pull you toward it?  You seem to suggest otherwise, which would contradict the laws of gravity.  I have no idea why you find this baffling.

You claim that it pull back - but in reality it works like a spring. Up and down Up and down in a constant movment.

It is like a spring.  If I extend the spring, it tries to pull me back.  If that shoots me to the other side, the spring pulls me back again.  Hence the green sine wave you see in that one picture.

How could it be?

How can it not be?  It would seem to violate Newton's laws if all that mass on one side didn't attract us back each time.

If I understand it correctly, Newton gave us two options:
1. Direct contact. For example:

An apple falling to the ground.

That isn't direct contact.  The apple has all the mass of the Earth on one side of it, so is attracted by gravity.  That's enough to break free of its bond on the tree and enter into orbital free fall around Earth.  I can't help it that the ground gets in the way and causes the apple to stop via forces other than gravity.  The disk isn't like that.  It is unlikely to actually strike anything large enough to prevent us from passing right through.  But we hit small stuff which slows us each time, so eventually the sine wave fades until the next time something big passes close by again to get a new sine wave going.  I think the friction with the disk is pretty minimal, so Earth will burn up before that wave fades noticeably.

2. Orbital motion.

The apple goes into orbit when it detaches from the tree, yes.  Not a pure orbit since it is not in a vacuum.  There is a lot of friction.  It would never come back to its start point even if the ground didn't get in the way.  The apple is in orbit around a single mass.  The solar system is not in orbit about the disk in this way.

However, I have never heard about Newton gravity force which could force a star to move up and down continually without orbital motion.

Try dropping an apple from some distance from a dense disk with a hole in it to allow the apple to pass through.  It will go back and forth forever through the hole, or so says Newton's laws.
You might consider that hole to by your VHP since the apple is always drawn to it, but the motion relative to that VHP would not be an orbit.  The closer the apple gets to that point, the smaller the force is acting on it.  With an orbit, the closer you get to the VHP, the greater the force.

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?

No idea what you're talking about here.  What 30 billion masses?  If they're far enough away, the nearby stars have greater effect since forces in inversely proportional to r².  Still, the 30 billion solar masses, while further away, will pull on each of those local stars, accelerating them as a group if the group moves away from the the disk.  The local stars are on all sides, so their pull tends to cancel out.  The disk, when all on one side, does not have its effect cancelled out.

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?

I don't understand the analogy.  An elephant on a swing moves due to the gravity of Earth which dwarfs the mass of both the mosquito and the elephant.

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.

Glue them to what?  What is a segment?  Are you trying to glue it to the arm?  What if the arm moves at some insane speed?  What if it moves faster than light?  Waves can do that.  No, I don''t suggest arms move that fast, but they probably move much faster than any of the material that lights them up.

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.

It will probably be moving too fast to do this, and will be flung away to some larger radius from the galaxy.

OK, so let's say we release the star at the mean velocity of all the other material in the arm, but not the speed of the arm itself.  I think that's what you have in mind.  I think the density of the arm will move on and the star will stay at the radius where you put it.  The arms's don't have much pull for very long since they pull one way as they approach and pull the other way after they pass.  The effects cancel.  It is moving out of the disk (in a direction parallel to the galactic axis) that would result in an attraction back to the disk.

But it will have two options:
One - To collide with one of the nearby stars

That can always happen, but they're small targets.  We've passed through the disk some ~110 times probably and haven't got close to one yet.

Two - start orbit around some sort of center of mass or around VHP which is a direct outcome of the stars in that segment.

Now you've jumped to your view.  You have refused to define where a VHP is given a certain setup, so this cannot be answered intelligently.
So how about option 3: It will continue its way around the galaxy, except without the green sine wave since you put it at equilibrium at the middle of the disk so it need not move up and down at all until defected by something.

Can you please explain how it could move up and down in a constant movement?

I think it will not, since you arrested that motion when you glued it in place.

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.

That makes no sense.  The arm is not an object.  Nothing can orbit it.  No matter is particularly part of it.  They're just waves that pass through the matter.  Your theory might propose otherwise, but then you have to answer your own questions, like what speed do the arms move, and why they're not completely wound tight by now.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Please look again at the following article:
https://www.livescience.com/63698-milky-way-spiral-wobble.html
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?
We know that the Sun and all the other stars in the disc are wobbling while they orbit around the galaxy.
We caim that it is due to the galactic disc.
But stars also wobble high or below the disc.
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_272845577
It 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!
Therefore, it should be clear to all of us that our scientists see wobbling path activity of S2.
Please remember that S2 is also not located at the disc.
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.

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.

How could it be?
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.
As an example:
http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/galactic-arms.html
What is the estimated ratio between the total stars in the arms comparing to the total stars in the disc outside the arm?
Do you agree that the arm is mainly made out of stars while the disc is mainly made out of arms?
If we take out all stars from all arms, do you think that there will be left something that can still be called disc?
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?
How could it be that the stars in the arm sets a gravity force which works horizontally, but doesn't work vertically?

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.
http://planetfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Planet-Orbits.jpg
Why is it? 
If we move further away from the bulge in the direction of the bar we see that stars start to orbit in a disc. (very wide disc close to the bulge, but as we go further away to the edge af the bar (which is also the starting point of the Arms - at 3KPC) we clearly see the disc shape.
Therefore, it is clear that the Arms + Bar set the disc and not vice versa.
Hence, if we call the disc an object than by definition the Arm and the Bar must be considered as an object.
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?
Why they don't show in their modeling how we could get the full spiral galaxy shape including: Bulge, Bar, Spiral Arms, Disc, Halo stars and so on.
Why they only focus in one segment of the galaxy (spiral arms + disc).
With regards to modeling:
Let's look at the following article:
https://kof.zcu.cz/st/dis/schwarzmeier/galaxy_models.html
A. "5.8  - Spherical galaxies
Our first objective is a simulation of elliptical galaxies with an eccentricity of zero (spherical galaxies). We will perform the simulation of two spherical systems – Plummer’s and Hernquist’s models."
However, the outcome was -
"Figure 5–13: A time sequence of Plummer’s model in the xy plane. Practically no evolution can be seen."
So, if they start with a spherical galaxy - they don't get a disc and they don't get the spiral arms!!!
B. However, if they start the modeling as a disc, they get some spiral arms which have gone after some time:
"5.9        Initial conditions for flattened systems
A spiral galaxy is flat and can be represented by a flattened potential. The disk of the spiral galaxy is generally very flat and we will describe them as infinitely thin. We will suppose that disks are axisymmetrical and therefore, initial conditions will be set up in cylindrical coordinates."
"Figure 5–16: A time sequence for Kepler’s disk model in the xy plane. The disk is ideally flat in the yz plane."
C. Just when they start with a very thin disc, with other parameters including the radial velocity dispersion of the solar neighborhood, they have finelly got the spiral arms.
"We will create a disk with kinematically hot (supported by random motions, rather than the rotational motion) stars. The thickness of the disk is set such that Toomre’s stability criterion is satisfied. The radial velocity dispersion  corresponds to the value of the Solar neighborhood, i.e."
But this is absolutely none realistic.
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 (especially not a thin disc of stars!!!).
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.
Than they have to add it to the requested time to form a spiral 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.
So, this modeling is not realistic as they didn't add the requested time from the Big bang to that starting point.
I'm quite sure that they might find that even after 10 billion years no real spiral arm would be formed.
E. As stated, they have only showed spiral arms and disc. Not even one single word about the other sections of spiral galaxy as Bulge & Bar. This is another sever mistake.
F. Actually, this modeling proves that there is no way to get spiral arms galaxy directly from spherical galaxies.
This evidence proves that our scientists have a severe mistake in their understanding how the spiral galaxy had been evolved from time zero - Big bang.
G. 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?
In one of the modeling they have showed clearly that after getting the spiral shape there is a possibility to lose it again.
Therefore, I'm quite sure that if they will continue with the modeling (for few more billion years) that disc will be so thick that we shouldn't see any spiral structure - maybe only spherical galaxy.

This could prove that spiral galaxy might be converted over time into spherical galaxy but not vice versa.

So, do you agree that based on those key ideas, there must be a severe problem with our current understanding about spiral galaxy and the evolvement activity of this galaxy from the Big Bang starting point?

[Halc]

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?

It says in the article.  They mapped the position and velocity of a huge number of objects and found this one region that had motion that was anomalous to the typical paths of the rest of them.  It apparently means somebody threw a rock into a calm pond and long after the rock had passed, the disturbance of it is still visible, centered on the passage point via 'wobbling' waves.  They even extrapolated back and found the object (the rock) that is responsible.

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?

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.

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_272845577
It 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.

Interesting, huh?  I also notice that the error bars abruptly get tiny on the right.  Somebody bought a new more accurate telescope during those 18 years.

Our 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.

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.

What happens somewhere not in the disk is no evidence whatsoever about the dynamics of the disk.

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.

Disks have width?  You mean thickness?

In 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.

Do you agree that the arm is mainly made out of stars while the disc is mainly made out of arms?

Disks are made of stars and gas and other material.  That mass moves differently than the arms, so no, I would not say that the disk is made of the arms any more than I say a lake is made out of waves.  It is made out of water, and yes, there is more water where the waves are high than where the waves are low, but the wave moves on and takes none of the water with it.

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.

I didn't say that.  Stars cross the disk as they move vertically back and forth across it, and due to the gravity of it.  The arm wave seemingly passes through us as it goes by, but like a leaf on the water, it makes the leaf wobble but doesn't actually change its position in the end.

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.

I don't know what you mean by this.  I don't know which direction you consider horizontal.  The arm passes through us, so that's pretty much the same as us crossing it.  Yes, I imagine the higher density of the stars causes some alteration to the path we'd otherwise take.

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?

Nothing is prevented from moving where it is heading.  There is material on all sides, so for the most part our progress in unhampered by that.  Think again of the leaf on the water which is not prevented from crossing the wave, and isn't even really moved by it in the long run.

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.

Pluto isn't a planet, and there are plenty of objects that orbit out of the plane.  None of them happen to be a planet, which are planar because they formed out of the same rotating disk of gas as the sun and have had nothing that can divert them out of that original plane.
The solar system is a lousy model of a little galaxy since it is held together by a primary mass and the galaxy isn't.  The dynamics are very different.

I still don't understand why our scientists just focus on the disc and the arms?

They probably focus more on stars and clouds and their interactions.  No idea what you mean by your statement there.

Why they don't explain the Bulge and the Bar?

There are models that do.  Your model doesn't because you have no model.  You don't post any simulations of your model.

With regards to modeling:
...
So, if they start with a spherical galaxy - they don't get a disc and they don't get the spiral arms!!!
B. However, if they start the modeling as a disc, they get some spiral arms which have gone after some time:
"5.9        Initial conditions for flattened systems[/quote]
They get arms (at least briefly) with a different model.  It isn't strictly the use of different initial conditions, but the use of a different model.  The arms are very short lived.  The model isn't very predictive.

All the simulations run for only a short time, like a billion years.  Real galaxies run undisturbed for perhaps this long, but in the longer run, they're constantly bombarded by collisions which disrupt the structure.  A good simulation running for the full 13 billion years needs to include such evolution.

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.

Briefly, yes, and using a different model.

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.

That was a different model, and I don't know what angular momentum they gave it.

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.

Indeed, so how did it get that way?  Here, the accretion model of solar system formation is somewhat useful since the early stages of a solar system is distributed material with angular momentum but no central mass yet.  Disks do form naturally, at least by standard models.  Your assertions seem to suggest that fully formed solar systems and their defined planes just spring into existence out of black holes, so maybe there is something that similarly spews forth galaxies with their disks already in place.

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.

A model of a spherical galaxy doesn't ever become a disk.  There are galaxies that stay spherical.  There are many classes of galaxy types.

"Figure 5–20: A time sequence for the hot exponential disk with  in the xy plane evolved with the Barnes-Hut N-body algorithm"

That's a third model now, and it still doesn't look like a real galaxy, but at least the arms seem a bit more stable.

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.

The arms are quite distinct after 0.4 billion years.  There were sort of there in the Kepler model as well, but after a billion years, they were gone again.  They were not stable.  Kepler's model I think is one where the arms are objects instead of waves.

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.

A model that doesn't exhibit the desired behavior proves that the model does not correspond entirely to the modelled thing.  It doesn't in any way prove that another model would not fare better.  Your grasp on logic is on the same level as your grasp of physics.

This is evidence which proves that our scientists have a severe mistake in their understanding how the spiral galaxy had been evolved.

What mistake would that be?  Are they asserting that one of these models is the correct one?  I doubt that seriously.  They're quite aware that they don't have a full understanding of the dynamics yet.

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.

The initial conditions are a very thin disk, just to see what thickness would form naturally.  It isn't suggested that the disk was ever that thin.

Why they stopped after this moment?
Why they didn't continue with the modeling?

Maybe it didn't evolve much after that.  To go longer, it would need to simulate the collisions with objects coming from the outside.  Those happen frequently at first, and still occur more than once every billion years.  I've seen animated simulations that run the whole lifespan of the galaxy and it shows all those outside objects from which most of the mass of the galaxy comes.  We were likely quite small in the beginning.

I'm quite sure that after 13 billion years that disc will be so thick that we would see just a normal spherical galaxy.

I've not seen any simulation that did that.

This could prove that spiral galaxy might be converted over time into spherical galaxy but not vice versa.

If there was a model, sure, but you don't have one, so there is no simulation of it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc
You 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.
Therefore, let me summarize between those none relevant ideas of the mean stream and my real theory.

In 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.

Sorry
Our scientists have no clue how spiral arms really works.
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.
Based on my explanation, the arms are made of stars. Any star which will dare to move out of the arm will be ejected from the galaxy (unless it is crossing a bridges or branches between the arms).
So, the arms are real object!
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.
However, in the same article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"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?
Why our scientists discuss about interstellar gas and dust while we mainly see G-type stars?
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 assume that they might find an area between the arms with high density of G -type stars (As it is a bridge or branch between the arms)
However, is there any possibility to find in the same volume of 100KL between the arms ZERO G -type stars?
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.
Wobbling

Our 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.

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.
If we look at our sun, it is not just wobbles up and down. It doesn't move horizontally to the disc. it actually move with some phase to the disc.
If that is correct, than the idea that it moves up and down due to the disc is incorrect by definition.
What is the amplitude of that wobbling activity of the sun?
I'm quite sure that it is less than 100Ly or even 50LY.
However, the diameter of the spiral arm is 1000LY.
There must be stars which are located at the most upwards side or downwards side of the arm. What is their up down wobbling amplitude. If they have the same wobbling amplitude as the sun, than by definition they don't cross the center of the disc.
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.
Even if you disagree with that - this is real!

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?

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.

Sorry, This is a severe mistake!
Wobbly way is not expected cycle.
Actually, Newton didn't specify "wobbling activity' in his theory.
Each star must orbit at a specific orbital cycle.
Therefore, the only solution for wobbling is orbital cycle around VHP!

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.

What happens somewhere not in the disk is no evidence whatsoever about the dynamics of the disk.

I also don't agree with this statment.
S2 (and all the other S stars) are wobbling due to the same idea as our Sun (and actually all the stars in the disc).
Therefore the disc can't be the source for the wobbling activity of our sun.
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.
This is a fatal mistake!
Please also remember that in the modeling our scientists have actually forgot to add the impact of the wobbling.
Dark matter
Dark matter is a solid prove that our scientists have failed to understand how spiral galaxy really works.
As they have no clue how spiral galaxy really works - they have found a wonderful idea - Dark matter.
They don't understand that there is a simple explanation for what we see in the galaxy.
Therefore, instead of looking for real solution which is based only on real matter, they came with none realistic idea that is called: "Dark matter".
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.
Sorry - You can't proof the dark matter by the same idea which it must support.
You have to be more creative!
Based on our scientists understanding, this dark matter gives an explanation for the orbital velocity of all the stars around the galaxy. They claim that this dark matter is the ultimate solution for the orbital velocities that we see.
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 / R
In 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 volume
Volume = 4 π R^3 /3
So, 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^3
So, we find that the mass in a sphere is a function of R^3 while V^2 is a function of 1/R
V^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
ρ * R^2 =  constant
so we need that
ρ = ƒ 1/R^2
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.
So, how could it be that suddenly at a distance lower than 10,000 LY there is no spiral arms?
How could it be that at the bulge - a distance lower than 1KPC (3,300LY) there is no orbital disc while stars orbit at a lower velocity although based on this ρ - dark matter density - the density is higher as we move inwards?
Sorry - this is none realistic idea.
Why the galaxy will set that kind of none linear dark matter density just to justify our none realistic ideas?
The universe is not working according to our wishing list.
There is a very simple explanation for that same/similar velocity over different range of radius.
Each star is connected by gravity to its spiral arm.
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.
However, as the arm orbits around the galaxy, all the stars in the arm drift outwards.
At the same time, new stars joine the arm from the center.
So, the spiral arms set the disc and not vice versa.
However, at the far edge of the arm, the star can't hold itself to the arm any more. Therefore, it is disconnected from the arm. As it is disconnecting from the arm it is also disconnecting from the disc.
The assumption that the sun stay at the same radius from its first day - is a fatal mistake.
The Sun and all its planets and moons had been formed in the molecular gas cloud at the center of the galaxy. All the matter in that molecular gas cloud had been created at the accretion/excretion disc by the SMBH.
Therefore, our Sun is drifting outwards over time.
Sooner or later, it will be disconnected from the Orion arm (with all the nearby stars) and join/set a new globular cluster.
The Bar is the connection media between the bulge (no disc) to the Arm.
It delivers new stars supply from the Bulge to the arms.
It is so simple, it fits Newton gravity by 100% and there is no need for dark matter or "Abra Cadabra".
This is real science!

Why 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.
http://planetfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Planet-Orbits.jpg
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.
In the same token why can't we expect to see similar activity from a star which gets to the edge of the Arm?
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. Not stars in a globular cluster, as due to the fact that they orbit around each other, at any given moment some of them must orbit in our direction.
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 disc
This is a solid prove that there is a fatal error with the current concept.

[Halc]

Dear Halc
You 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.

Exactly so.  Your message makes no predictions, so it isn't a theory.  If Newton supported that, his celebrity status would not prevent the rejection of the message.

So, it is quite clear to me that whatever I will say you would reject.

Not at all.  Actually pony up the theory and show how it makes better predictions that the main stream views.  You haven't done that.

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 see no deep explanation.   No alternate predictions can be made from what you've told me.  Do you have a measurement of the motion of the arms?  The rotation curve reflects average measurements of the material, not the arms, which, not being objects, have no clear way of speed measurement other than watching them for say 25 million years.

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

That is a crude diagram naming the arms.  It is evidence of what names were given to the arms.
It also depicts the parts that we can see vs the parts that are guesswork.

It shows that based on our verifications all/most of the stars in the milky way disc are located at the arms.

That diagram shows no such thing.  Actual data might show that, but I have no way of gleaning that particular data from that diagram.

"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"?

It means more stars and gas per unit volume than in the same volume elsewhere.

Where are all of those nearby interstellar gas and dust?

'Those'?  We're not even in one of the four arms mentioned in that statement.  Anyway, the nearby interstellar gas and dust is nearby, as opposed to more distant interstellar gas and dust which is more distant.

If we look nearby, we only see G-type stars.
Why is it?

Where do you get this information?  It seems quite a claim.
The three nearest stars are a red dwarf, a type G and a type K.  Sound like we see plenty more than just G stars, but that is just a sample of 3.

If I understand correctly - there is only one nubila in the whole Orion arm.

That would be amazing...

Don't forget that in the simulation our scientists are using stars!

Depends on what is being simulated.  A simulation of star formation would need to simulate the material from which the stars form.   If it is simulating only the mass of the material, it might sometimes model that mass as stars (point masses) rather than a fluid.  Some simulations do it with pure fluid dynamics and no point masses at all.

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).

Did I have a simulation?  Did I ever mention G type stars?

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)

What very convenient round numbers.  All powers of 2.
Never mind.  I get the logic of what they're saying here.  They're also not counting other star types.

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?

The quote you gave didn't convey that information.
It wouldn't be zero.  The space between is part of the disk which has material at varying densities everywhere.

I'm sure by 100% that there are big areas between the arms without even a single star.

Depends on your definition of 'big area'.  The larger the volume, the lower the odds that there are no stars in that volume.

That is a direct outcome from my theory.

How can a theory that cannot be used to make predictions have any direct outcomes?

So, if that is correct, my theory is also correct.

Again, illustrating that logic is not part of your tool belt.  20 very different theories might allow there to be no G class stars in a given volume, and the finding of such a volume would, by your logic, prove them all correct.

Thanks
So you agree that at least S2 is wobbling.

It doesn't have a clean orbit.  I wouldn't use the word 'wobble' to describe the discrepancies.

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?

Because you've linked to several articles that said pretty much exactly that.

Once you agree that stars are wobbling - you actually say that you can't explain it by normal orbital cycle.

Only a 2 body system has a 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.

I love how you make up numbers instead of do the math from the data from your links.

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.

None of the visible stars have ever crossed the center of the galaxy, since Sgr-A would have eaten them if that happened, and they'd no longer be visible.
Some stars have never crossed the plane of the disk either because they're beyond the gravitational influence of the galaxy, or because they're too young to have ever done it yet.  But I agree that all stars that are part of the galaxy will cross the plane of the disk (or any other plane that goes through the center) given enough time.  Similarly, all objects in the solar system will cross any plane that passes through the sun given enough time.  If it doesn't do that, it isn't part of the solar system.  For that matter, I'm trying to think of any object that is not part of the solar system, but is part of the galaxy, which does not ever cross an arbitrary plane through the sun.  Andromeda has never crossed the solar plane, but we've not yet given it enough time.  More distant objects probably never will.

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.

With a very regular wobble, yes.  The existence of Earth would be determined from that motion.  It is how they detect a lot of planets around other stars.

So, the only real explanation for that wobbling is a Virtual host point - VHP.

No, the explanation is Earth.  A VHP has no gravitational pull of its own.  If it does, you've not given any sort of way I might estimate the pull of one.  I've tried several times to ask, using small words and simple cases and such, and you obviously have no answer.

Let's try to have better understanding on Newton gravity force.
The formula is:
F= G M m / R^2

No mention of a VHP...  You need a different equation for your idea, but you refuse to give it.

How based on this formula we can justify a stable wobbling activity around the disc plane of the galaxy?

It makes very good predictions concerning that cycle relative to the plane.
You understand no mathematics.  I'm not going into the derivation of what that formula means for a planar distribution of matter.  Short story: If an object has a mass mostly to one side, it will be attracted by gravity in that direction, accelerating it back to the mass.

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.

What definition would that be?

It cant just move up/down. There is no formula by Newton for up/down.

The formula above predicts it.  Your lack of mathematical skills doesn't change that.

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.

That's pretty much how it works.  Substitute 'gravity' for Abra Cadabra, and you have a description of how the motion of Earth was explained, proven by the motion of Earth.  The difference is that they gave a formula from which the motion could be compared with reality.  You've not done that, so you don't have any Abra Cadabra.
Newton didn't just throw a tantrum and repeatedly assert to the guys in some pub (which is essentially what this website is) that his idea explained everything.  But that seems to be your approach.  Of course we cannot be expected to accept it.

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.

I remember there being a physics of 'impetus' for ballistic objects.

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 / R
In 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.

What is an orbital sphere?

The mass in the sphere is represented by its volume
Volume = 4 π R^3 /3
So, 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

If it has uniform density, yes.  Uniform mass distribution would have no net gravitational pull at all since it is the same in all directions.  It all cancels out at any given point.

M = ρ * 4 π R^3 /3 = 4/3 * π  * ρ * R^3
So, we find that the mass in a sphere is a function of R^3 while V^2 is a function of 1/R
V^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

You can do algebra.  I wasn't sure.
In short, for uniform matter density spheres, V² is proportional to R² (the rest of the values being invariants), so V is proportional to R, which sort of matches the first part of the rotation curve of a typical galaxy.  One can surmise from this that the density of material in the central sphere of the galaxy is fairly uniform.

Hence,
The only way to set the velocity at the same/similar value at different R is by setting the following value to constant

Except that the matter in the part of the galaxy with somewhat constant speed of contents is not arranged with spherical symmetry, so the equations you quote above do not apply.  Those equations above are both applicable only to spheres, and you're applying them to a non-spherical arrangement of matter.

So, if we want to see a same velocity at different radius, the dark matter density (ρ) must be function of  1/R^2.

The matter density can be inferred from the speed, yes.  Not at that proportion if it isn't a sphere.  But it doesn't make a difference if the matter is visible or not.  The mathematics says what the density (ρ) must be to account for a given velocity.
Disk dynamics are more complicated than that of a sphere since material outside the 'orbital' radius has an influence on the speed of material at a particular radius.

Hence, as we move closer to the center the density should be higher.

Probably, yes, but not in the proportion you state.

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.

Dark matter density was not part of any of your equations.  Matter density is presumably higher towards the center, and maybe it is.  I don't know the numbers, and I'm no expert on how the bar and arms form or interact.  The scientists themselves might not agree on any particular model, but at least they don't just assert that some un-backed descriptions serves as the explanation.

How could it be that at the bulge - a distance lower than 1KPC (3,300LY) there is no orbital disc

There is still a disk that close in, but plenty of material moves outside of that disk.

Why the galaxy will set that kind of none linear dark matter density just to justify our none realistic ideas?

What is none-linear dark matter?  OK, you probably meant non-linear, but what is that?  You seem to have made up the term.  How is matter (dark or not) linear or non-linear matter?

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.

The arms would not have the shape they do if that were true.  The parts further out have longer to travel and hence take longer to do one lap at that constant speed.  The arms would quickly wind so tight that you'd not be able to make them out.  That is the primary evidence that the idea you propose is wrong.  It doesn't predict what we see.
For the arms to hold their shape like that, they'd need to move in proportion to R, not at a rate that is relatively invariant with R as do the stars.

This is real science!

Cherry picked evidence, no dynamic model, and no equations that make predictions which can be compared to different predictions from other models.  A real scientist would focus on the points where the model fit most poorly since those are the areas most in need of improvement. It is why they need peer review.  But you run from peer review, changing the subject when blatant contradictions are pointed out.
It is pretty much a great example of not even bad science, but not science at all.

Why 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.

Yes.  Pluto isn't a planet, mostly because it wasn't formed in the same was as a planet, as evidence by its orbital inclination 

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.

If you count Pluto, there are several more that are further out.

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).

Mercury has similar eccentricity, despite the nice clean circular orbit that the picture gives it.  Pluto is 0.25, and Mercury is 0.21, so that isn't a big difference compared to *all* the others.

Therefore, it actually cross the orbital disc plane of all the others.

All of the planets and rocks and comets do that.  We discussed that above.  There is no way from them not to.  They all cross any plane that goes through the sun.

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),

What is this orbital sphere that you say is putting a force on each star?  Neither the galaxy (about which we loosely orbit) nor the disk (which deflects that path from a simple orbital path) is a spherical shape.

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?

Yes, the ones that orbit a companion.  Most do.

Do we see even one single star that in moving in the direction of the disc?

I cannot parse this question, but it seems that about 50% of the stars are moving towards the disk and 50% away, some a lot and some negligibly.  Any other number would be a trend.

But please - Not a star which is located far above or far below the disc.

Even those must be 50/50 in moving closer or further from it at any given moment.

Please - only a star that is quite close to the disc and approaching the disc.

You've shown diagrams showing the nearby stars moving every which direction.  So stars nearer the middle of the disc have similar random motion, resulting in that 50/50 split.

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?

Yes, about half of them.

I'm sure by 100% that we won't find there even a single star which is moving in the direction of the disc.

There you go.  No math, but at least a prediction.  Look up some survey data and you can verify this thing you're so sure about.
Or get a telescope and do it yourself, being careful only to record the stars that are moving away, and discarding the measurements that show motion towards the disk.

If there is a star, this star should fly at ultra high speed away from the disc
This 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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If there is a star, this star should fly at ultra high speed away from the disc
This 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.

Thanks
However, do you really have the willing to consider a "problem with the current concepts?"
If so, I really admire your approach.

So, let me help you as follow:
Please look at the following article:
https://www.space.com/24432-hypervelocity-stars-ejected-from-milky-way.html
It is stated:
"Strange, Hypervelocity Stars Get Ejected from Milky Way"
"A new class of fast-moving stars are on their way out of the Milky Way, scientists say."
"Our new stars are relatively small — about the size of the sun — and the surprising part is that none of them appear to have come from the galactic core."
So, our scientists are surprising to see a group of Sun like stars that are flying away (fast-moving) from the Milky Way, Those stars don't come from the center of the galaxy.
It is also stated:
"What might have provided the needed galaxy-fleeing kick, however, is still a mystery."
"The big question is, what boosted these stars up to such extreme velocities?" Holley-Bockelmann said. "We are working on that now."
So, let me answer: Mr. Holley-Bockelmann:
Dear Mr. - You don't have to work on that. I have already found the solution (If you are willing to listen..)

So, this "galaxy - fleeing kick" is mystery to Mr. Holley-Bockelmann and other scientists.
It is Mystery as they don't have a clue how spiral galaxy really works.
This Mystery by itself should stop all their activity and force them to evaluate the whole current concepts - from step one.
They shouldn't just say: "The big question is, what boosted these stars up to such extreme velocities?" and just look for a new none realistic idea/patch to fix their unrealistic concept.
If they offer a concept/idea/theory and they see clearly that there is a problem/Mystery/surprising part with this concept, than:
Why our scientists don't say:"Huston - We have a problem?"
Why they don't open their mind to other ideas?
How can we consider them as scientists while their main task is to protect/prove their unrealistic concept under any verification???
I have master in electronics and communications.
If my design group team see a none expected phenomenon/mystery/surprising part - they have to start their verification from step one..
However, I'm quite sure that our scientists would never ever ask themselves if there is a problem with their concept.
They will surly come with new (none realistic) idea to close the gap.
Based on my theory - there is no mystery in this verification.
That exactly meets my expectation.
This is one more solid proof that my theory is 100% correct!

So, what is needed for our scientists to understand that there is a problem with their current concept?
Is there any way to open their eyes?
Or is it none realistic request. For ever & never?

Are you really willing to consider an option for problem with the current concept?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I think the article says "New class" which implies these stars are doing something the typical ones don't.

For one moment I was almost convinced that you are willing to consider an option for a problem with the current concept.
In any case, this article is very important.
It contradicts the current concept and it fully meets the expectations based on my Theory.
It is stated clearly that:
"What might have provided the needed galaxy-fleeing kick, however, is still a mystery."
"The big question is, what boosted these stars up to such extreme velocities?" Holley-Bockelmann said. "We are working on that now."
"the surprising part is that none of them appear to have come from the galactic core."
I have expected to see exactly this kind of activity - and we see it clearly.
How do we know if our theory is correct?
How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?
How many times our scientists were totally "surprise" from new discoveries?
I'm quite sure that If they had "engineering approach", they would surly look for better ideas instead of adding again one more patch for the none realistic theory.
I see so big gap between the engendering approach to our scientists approach.
In our daily working, the design engineers try to be creative and do not hesitate to start from step one if a  "mystery" had been discovered.
How our scientists consider setting any new discovery if they force themselves to stay in one spot forever and ever?
We are so lucky that our scientists do not have to develop our high tech activity.
The current concept had been developed at the same time with the first transistor.
However, the current concept is still with us, while design engineers all over the world have set breakthrough discovering which dramatically improved our daily life.
So let's compare between the current concepts to my theory.
Do you agree that based on the "current concept" this discovery is not expected as it is stated: mystery/surprising/the big question...?
If so, let me ask you the following:
Are you willing to consider an option that there is a problem with the "current concept theory"?
Is this concept is going to stay with us forever and ever under any mystery or surprising discovery?
How could it be that our scientists don't open their mind to all the difficulties in that concept?
What kind of data/evidence would convince you that this current concept theory is incorrect and none relevant?
Why don't you try to have better understanding about my new theory without being so criticize?
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?

Are you willing for the following:
If I offer several real evidences/mesurments that contradicts the expectations based on the "current concept" theory - Than, are you willing to accept the idea that this theory is incorrect? (Please advice how many do you need - as I have already offered more than one)?
If you offer one real evidence/mesurment which contradicts the expectation based on my theory  - Than I'm ready to accept the idea that my theory is incorrect. (only one is needed).
But please - not any sort of evidence which is based on the none realistic "current concept".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Thanks
So you agree that there are problem with any current concept/modeling/theory which we have.

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 cannot validate what you don't have.  I tried real hard to make a simple case, but even that was too much.

I can't do that with your idea since there is nothing from which predictions can be made.  I cannot model its behavior.

So, let me highlight the basic elements which are fundamentals for my theory.
This is very normal request.
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^2
2. 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 is
3.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 definition
5. Gravity works locally.
6. Spiral arm is an object.
That's all I ask you to accept.
Once you accept those key elements AS IS, I will explain how Spiral galaxy works and how the whole Universe works. I don't need any other none relevant ideas.
No need for dark matter. No need for dark energy. No need for space expansion or inflation. – just based on what we see. You would find that my theory (which is based on those elements) fully meets any verification that we have.
So, do you agree to accept those elements as is?
If even one element is incorrect, than by definition the theory is incorrect.
If the theory is incorrect - we should find severe problem with this theory
However, if my theory (which is based on those elements) meets our observation by 100% than the theory & those elements are fully correct..
Agree?

[Halc]

So you agree that there are problem with any current concept/modeling/theory which we have.

Pretty much every theory, yes.  None are complete.  Hence the search for the illusive 'Theory of Everything'.

Our scientists assume that there is dark matter although they couldn't prove it by any real measurements.

Measurements of the acceleration of things (the sun say) are very real measurements.  That doesn't prove dark matter, but something needs to explain that acceleration.

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.

I seriously doubt that.

So, you are requested to accept the following elements as follow:
1. Newton formula for gravity force is: F=GMm/R^2
2. 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.

For what to increase its gravity force?  The star, or the host?
Not criticizing, but just trying to clarify.

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 is
3.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 definition
5. Gravity works locally.
6. Spiral arm is an object.
That's all I ask you to accept.

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.

However, 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.
A description that just says: "Everything you see, that's the way it is" meets our observation by 100%, but it isn't a correct theory because it isn't a theory.  I can make no predictions from that terse statement.  A theory suggests falsification tests.  If it passes those tests better than other theories, then it is better than those other theories, but still not necessarily correct.  Nothing in science is every declared proven or necessarily correct.  Even a theory of everything will still be just a theory.  It might be better than anything existing today, but still not 'proven'.

Agree?

I think I pointed out a contradiction in your points.  Perhaps I misunderstood one of them and just need a clarificiation.  Otherwise, I am willing to agree to your 6 points.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, 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.

Thanks!!!
Do appreciate your positive approach.

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.

Agree
Only five 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 Locally
I 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. Based on my theory - (which I will introduce soon) 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?

[Halc]

So, let me start with 5:
Gravity Works Locally
I 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

That conflicts with gravity working locally, so are you saying you're discarding this formula?  If not, you've got a direct conflict with gravity working locally since that formula does not yield a zero result no matter how large you make R.

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.

According to classic physics, this isn't a function of the greater force, and not a function of the mass of the orbiting thing.  It is a function of acceleration.  An object will orbit Earth if the acceleration due to Earth gravity is greater than the difference of acceleration due to the sun between the object and Earth.  So you compute the (mass independent) acceleration due to the sun of Earth, and also the moon (when they're at maximum radius difference), subtract the two, and compare that to the acceleration of the moon due to Earth.  The latter is larger, hence the moon orbits Earth directly.  You seem to be rewriting these rules, so feel free to offer different ones.

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?

OK, a different usage of the term 'local'.  Gravity seems to have memory, and play favorites with things to which it attached in the past.   If that is what you mean by 'locally', then I suppose it is clear.  The term usually means that it doesn't work after a certain distance.  In QM, it means any distance.  Nothing that happens here can have an immediate effect elsewhere.  That's the principle of locality, which has never been proven.  The primary evidence against it is 'spooky action at a distance'.  Anyway, that's what 'local' means in physics, but you seem to mean a different thing. I see no contradiction in what you've said.

Based on my theory - (which I will introduce soon)

You sound like a religious evangelist promising say the rapture 'soon'.  Always soon, but nothing ever produced.
We're up to like 250 posts here.  As I said in the prior post:

I seriously doubt that.

Not saying anything in your post is wrong except that mention of 'soon'.  That is car-salesman speak for 'never', and yes, I put the religious evangelists on the same tier as car salesmen.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I see no contradiction in what you've said.

Thanks
Actually I fully agree with your explanation.
It seems to me that I should call it: "hysteresis phenomenon in gravity". Which means:

Gravity seems to have memory, and play favorites with things to which it attached in the past.

So thanks about your very positive highlight.

Not saying anything in your post is wrong except that mention of 'soon'

Sorry that I don't go directly to the Theory as I need to clarify also the following basic element:
1. Newton formula for gravity force is: F=GMm/R^2
This formula is OK as long as we ignore the time.
However, if we need to calculate the gravity force after some interval time the formula should be as follow:
F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2
tΔ represents the change in the radius over time.
For example, we know that the Moon drifts outwards by 3.5 cm per year.
Therefore:
Δ (moon) = 3.5 cm /per year.
or
Δ (moon) = 3.5cm/365= 0.00959 cm/per day.
I assume that we might be able to set the formula for Δ as a function of the masses, radius and some constant.
But I didn't consider it deeply yet.
In any case, the updated formula for gravity which also reflects time interval is:
F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2
Based on this formula, we should be able to estimate the gravity force for any object after any given time. (Assuming that there is no external force/friction).
It also shows that any orbital object has a spiral shape by definition.
So, the updated basic elements are as follow:
1. Newton formula for gravity force for any time interval is: F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2
2. Virtual Host Point (VPH) 
3. SMBH Excretion disc
4. Hysteresis phenomenon in gravity
5. Spiral arm is an object.
Is it clear so far?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What makes the radius increase?

The radius increases due to the normal activity by gravity.
Any orbital object increases it's orbital radius over time. This radius increasing is not due to any sort of Tidal. It is just normal gravity activity.
Unfortunately, Newton didn't add the impact of time interval in his gravity formula.

Only if tΔ is always positive, and the moon's tΔ is currently negative, making its closes approach on March 19.

Please do not confuse yourself with the elliptical cycle of the orbital object.
The following formula: F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2 is related to a perfect orbital cycle.
I assume that we can set the adaptation for any elliptical cycle. (based on kepler)
However, the whole idea is that there is a constant increasing in the radius.
Therefore, for elliptical cycle, we need to compare the current orbital cycle to the previous one.
If we do so, we should find that at any given location in the elliptical cycle, there is increasing in the radius.
I hope that it also answer your questions about the Sun/Earth orbital cycle.
Is it clear?