[Kryptid]

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.

Where does the energy come from to raise the object against the gravitational potential?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Ultimate Theory for our Universe

1. New mass creation
Further the discussion about new matter creation at the excretion disc of the Milky way:
Please see: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75261.40
New Atoms and Molecular are created at the accretion/excretion disc.
This matter drifts out from the excretion disc lifted upwards (or downwards) by the mighty magnetic power around the SMBH.
As it falls back near the SMBH, it sets the molecular gas clouds.
2. New Stars/Planets/Moons forming activity
In those clouds the molecular orbits at high velocity around the center (of the cloud) and cristilize into stars/planets/Moons (Due to the gravity impact of the nearby SMBH).
So, by the time that the new born star emerge from the molecular gas cloud, it also carry all of its planets and moons.
However, each object comes as a hot gas ball. Therefore, all/most of the rocky planets and moons are so nicely round balls.
Our Earth and Moon had been formed at the same day as our Sun and also with the same molecular structure as the Sun. Hence, 98% of the new born Earth and moon were mainly gas (mostly Hydrogen - Exactly as the Sun in his first day). However, in the other 2% (or less) it includes all heavy atoms/molecular that we see on Earth today (as Silicate, cupper, Iron, Gold, water and so on).
The big gas planets (as Neptune) could keep most/some of the their molecular gas over time due to their higher gravity mass. However, our relatively small Earth and moon have lost most of the gas into space. We are very lucky that the earth could keep significant portion of its water and atmosphere during all the time from its first day.
So, at the first day, the Earth and the Moon were heavier by at least 98/2 (about 50 times) than their current mass.
Due to element no. 1 (F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2) it is also clear that all the objects were much closer to each other in the first day.
In any case, at that first day, the Earth/Moon gravity was much stronger than Sun/Moon gravity.
Therefore, the moon had chosen to orbit around the Earth instead of around the Sun. It keeps orbit around the Earth due to element No.4 (Hysteresis phenomenon in gravity).
3. Virtual host Point - VHP
As I have explained, Each new born star had to orbit around the center of the gas cloud in order to crystallize from molecular gas into real star. That orbital cycle sets the first level of Virtual host Point. (as there was no real object at the center of the gas cloud). Therefore, as the star emerge from the gas cloud it also emerge while it orbits around its VHP1.
Please see the following excellent image (It was not set by our scientists - but it is correct by 100%):
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
The blue dots (Apparent motion of the solar system) shows the orbital motion of the sun around its virtual host point (Orange ball).
That VHP1 is valid for the Sun and for any new born star in the galaxy.
So, each star in the galaxy orbits by definition around its unique VHP1 (that was the center of the gas cloud). It will continue to orbit around this VHP1 (due to element No.4 - Hysteresis phenomenon in gravity) and goes where ever the VHP1 goes.
Therefore, with related to gravity force, the nearby aria do not "see" the star itself, but they "see" or set the gravity impact due to its VHP1.
However, there is one more important impact by this VHP1. It doesn't just change the gravity center location of the Sun, but it also increases dramatically the effective mass of the Sun due to VHP1. (I hope that I have used the correct name)
Let's look again in that diagram.
In order to hold the Sun in that blue dots (Apparent motion of the solar system), The orange ball (Virtual point) must represent higher effective mass.
We can extract that effective mass value by simple calculation (based on its elliptical orbit and velocity), as we did for S2. We might find that the effective VHP1' Sun mass is higher by more than 1000 times with regards to the real Sun' mass.
So, the nearby aria gravity "see" the VHP1' Sun location and its effective mass (and ignore the real location of the sun and its real mass value).
Therefore, with regards to the Sun' nearby stars, we have to monitor the location of each VHP1 star and its effective mass.
Based on this theory, we should find that the VHP1 of each star is located almost at the same location in the spiral arm (although each star is moving to different direction), while the effective mass of each VHP1 is much higher than the real mass value of each star.
Therefore, when we set the gravity simulation in the spiral arm, we need to focus on the locations of the VHP1 of each star and its effective mass, (which is estimated to be much higher than the real mass value).
This is a key element why the gravity force of the nearby G stars in the Orion arm can hold/bond them together in the arm, (although by monitoring the real location/mass/density we might think that it's not good/high enough).
I will stop at this point in order to verify that this message (so far) is clear to you.

[Halc]

In any case, at that first day, the Earth/Moon gravity was much stronger than Sun/Moon gravity.
Therefore, the moon had chosen to orbit around the Earth instead of around the Sun. It keeps orbit around the Earth due to element No.4 (Hysteresis phenomenon in gravity).

There is no hysteresis in the function you gave.  It references a current recession rate, nothing from the past.  It reduces force from Earth without reducing the force from the sun, so if the magnitude of the force determines which thing it orbits (it doesn't), then Newton's formula should have Earth hanging onto the moon harder than your formula suggests.

I also can build a fairly trivial perpetual motion machine from your one formula, but you've made it pretty clear that conservation of momentum (both linear and angular), and conservation of energy are all to be discarded, so a perpetual motion machine is not surprising.

The formula you give also conflicts the VHP idea.  The formula has the moon being attracted to Earth (and other objects), not its VHP.  So this discrepancy is very unclear.

3. Virtual host Point - VHP
As I have explained, Each new born star had to orbit around the center of the gas cloud in order to crystallize from molecular gas into real star. That orbital cycle sets the first level of Virtual host Point. (as there was no real object at the center of the gas cloud). Therefore, as the star emerge from the gas cloud it also emerge while it orbits around its VHP1.
Please see the following excellent image (It was not set by our scientists - but it is correct by 100%):
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
The blue dots (Apparent motion of the solar system) shows the orbital motion of the sun around its virtual host point (Orange ball).[/quote]
If that picture were in any way representative of the actual motion, the orange ball moves at 217 km/sec and circles the galaxy in 200 million years.  The blue dot path appears to be about 8 times longer, so if it is supposed to keep pace with this orange VHP, it would need to move about 8 times as fast, or 1700 km/sec.  Instead it labels the speed at 5-20 km/sec, or about 1% of the speed it needs.  The sun's speed is neither, so that picture is not an "excellent image".
I am not commenting on your idea here, just commenting that the solar system cannot follow a path like that around the galaxy.  Get your evidence from real data, not from drawings made by somebody with no credentials.

That VHP1 is valid for the Sun and for any new born star in the galaxy.
So, each star in the galaxy orbits by definition around its unique VHP1 (that was the center of the gas cloud). It will continue to orbit around this VHP1 (due to element No.4 - Hysteresis phenomenon in gravity) and goes where ever the VHP1 goes.

Not according to that picture you linked.

If the moon is receding from Earth, is it taking its VHP with it?  If so, why does it still orbit Earth and not this moved VHP?

Therefore, with related to gravity force, the nearby aria do not "see" the star itself, but they "see" or set the gravity impact due to its VHP1.

Your formula references the other mass, not the VHP.  This is the part that is really unclear.  I would expect a formula that says F=some function of the mass of the object and the distance to (and other properties of) the VHP, not the other masses in the system.

Therefore, when we set the gravity simulation in the spiral arm, we need to focus on the locations of the VHP1 of each star and its effective mass, (which is estimated to be much higher than the real mass value).
This is a key element why the gravity force of the nearby G stars in the Orion arm can hold/bond them together in the arm, (although by monitoring the real location/mass/density we might think that it's not good/high enough).
I will stop at this point in order to verify that this message (so far) is clear to you.

Well, I asked some clarification questions in the last post, which went unanswered, so I don't much see the point in asking them.  Nevertheless I asked a few above.  The fact that they are asked means of course that the message isn't totally clear.  Feel free to clarify those points, or just ignore them and carry on.  It seems to be your style to just evade places where the idea doesn't work.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There is no hysteresis in the function you gave.  It references a current recession rate, nothing from the past.  It reduces force from Earth without reducing the force from the sun, so if the magnitude of the force determines which thing it orbits (it doesn't), then Newton's formula should have Earth hanging onto the moon harder than your formula suggests.

Sorry, I don't understand your question.
In any case, I have introduced five elements 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.
Each one stands by its own.
So, I don't understand why do you mix between no. 4. (Hysteresis phenomenon in gravity) to no. 1. (Newton formula for gravity force for any time interval is: F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2)
Let me start from the molecular gas which falls next to the SMBH, and explain it again:
Due to the high gravity impact of the SMBH, the molecular gas starts to rotate (around the center) at high velocity - as a tornado. That rotation in the molecular gas set the gas cloud.
So, we get a molecular gas cloud which rotate at high velocity around its center while it also orbits around the nearby SMBH.
At the first day of this cloud we might find there only molecular gas. However, due to the high rotation, the molecular gas starts to crystallize into small objects (mainly due to the very high internal rotation velocity and the gravity impact of the nearby SMBH). Later on those small objects merge with each other and set bigger and bigger objects. Eventually, when the star will emerge from the gas cloud it should carry with it all its planets and moons. By that time the gas cloud had been drifted away from the SMBH due to element no. one.
I assume that the crystallize process could take place only if the gas cloud is close enough to the SMBH. If it is too far away, the internal rotation velocity of the gas cloud should decrease and at some point, the whole crystallize process could stop.
In any case, by the time that the star emerge from the gas cloud, each moon orbits directly around its plane, each planet orbits directly around the star while the star orbits around the center of the gas cloud which represents the VHP1 point of that star.
Therefore, those moons and the planets (that orbits around the star) don't have a VHP as they orbit directly around the star.
That should answer your following question:

If the moon is receding from Earth, is it taking its VHP with it?  If so, why does it still orbit Earth and not this moved VHP?

Never the less, there might be some/many other objects in that gas cloud which didn't join that new star system by the time that it emerges from the gas cloud. So, yes, we can claim that there might be moon and planets that orbits directly around the center of the gas cloud - VHP. However, due to their relatively small size, by the time that they emerge from the molecular cloud, they will not be able to hold themselves by gravity around that VHP. Therefore, all of them will be ejected into space.
So, only the star with its very high mass (With all its planets, moons and other objects (as Oort cloud) that it had collected from the gas cloud) will be able to keep on orbiting that VHP1.
Is it clear?

Please see the following excellent image (It was not set by our scientists - but it is correct by 100%):
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
The blue dots (Apparent motion of the solar system) shows the orbital motion of the sun around its virtual host point (Orange ball).

If that picture were in any way representative of the actual motion, the orange ball moves at 217 km/sec and circles the galaxy in 200 million years.  The blue dot path appears to be about 8 times longer, so if it is supposed to keep pace with this orange VHP, it would need to move about 8 times as fast, or 1700 km/sec.  Instead it labels the speed at 5-20 km/sec, or about 1% of the speed it needs.  The sun's speed is neither, so that picture is not an "excellent image".
I am not commenting on your idea here, just commenting that the solar system cannot follow a path like that around the galaxy.  Get your evidence from real data, not from drawings made by somebody with no credentials.

This image just show the orbital movement of the sun around Its VHP1. You shouldn't monitor the blue dots in order to get an idea about the orbital velocity. We actually know this data. It sets one full cycle in 60 million years..
However, can you please advice what is the amplitude/radius of that orbit which our scientists call "wobbling".
Please - I don't think that we should de- estimate the ability of "somebody with no credentials".
The estimated orbital shape and the radius are very critical for this discussion. Based on this data we can extract the estimated effective mass of the Sun at VHP1. This should help us to verify the gravity forces at the spiral arm,

[syhprum]

I think that as regards the Suns attraction to our Moon the Earth/Moon system is sufficiently compact with the centre of gravity below the surface of the Earth that it revolves around the Sun as one unit.

[Halc]

There is no hysteresis in the function you gave.  It references a current recession rate, nothing from the past.  It reduces force from Earth without reducing the force from the sun, so if the magnitude of the force determines which thing it orbits (it doesn't), then Newton's formula should have Earth hanging onto the moon harder than your formula suggests.

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

That one wasn't a question.  Just an observation.  For instance, the moon currently has an average recession rate of 3.8 cm/year, but that rate was larger in the past at times, and smaller at other times.  The formula references nothing from these past rates, only the current rate, which isn't hysteresis.

In any case, I have introduced five elements as follow:
1. Newton formula for gravity force for any time interval is: F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2

...  no. 1. (Newton formula for gravity force for any time interval is: F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2)

That is not Newton's formula, and without a way to add two numbers which are in different units, it cannot be used to make any direct calculations, only relative ones, which means I can make a perpetual motion machine, but cannot compute how much energy I can extract from it.  It doesn't explain recession, only makes force a function of that recession, which just changes the orbital speed of something at a particular radius R from what classic physics would compute.

In any case, by the time that the star emerge from the gas cloud, each moon orbits directly around its plane, each planet orbits directly around the star while the star orbits around the center of the gas cloud which represents the VHP1 point of that star.
Therefore, those moons and the planets (that orbits around the star) don't have a VHP as they orbit directly around the star.
That should answer your following question:

If the moon is receding from Earth, is it taking its VHP with it?  If so, why does it still orbit Earth and not this moved VHP?

You're telling me that the moon orbits Earth directly and doesn't have a VHP of its own.  In fact nothing in our solar system has a VHP since they all directly orbit some mass.  Perhaps the sun doesn't, but you've not described how to compute the location of its VHP or how the motion of an object relates to that VHP.  Does the VHP attract the sun? By how much? If it does, what about the mass of some object that is far closer: Does that divert the sun?  What if the mass is strong enough to pull the sun away from its VHP?
These are really trivial questions with Newtonian physics, and I only need that one formula, plus F=ma to compute the motion of anything.  Force on the moon from the sun is greater than force from Earth, therefore the moon always accelerates towards the sun, even when between the two.  It only accelerates straight towards Earth when Earth is between the two and the sun and Earth are pulling in the same direction.  That's what it means for one force to be greater than the other.  The moon always accelerates primarily towards the greater force.  It does not mean that it directly orbits the thing with the greater force.
Anyway, I cannot make any of these observations with your physics since you don't tell me how to compute the location of a VHP or how to compute the motion in relation to that VHP.  It is why I cannot predict where my 3 unit-masses will go.  Your theory is absent and I can make no predictions.  I tire of this endless repeating of this summary.  Yes, I get the 6 points.  I cannot demonstrate problems with it since they all incompletely defined.

So, only the star with its very high mass (With all its planets, moons and other objects (as Oort cloud) that it had collected from the gas cloud) will be able to keep on orbiting that VHP1.
Is it clear?

It is clear what you mean by VHP.  It has been for a long time.  I just don't know where to find it or how the motion of something relates to it.  You mentioned it having an elliptic orbit around it sort of like S2 does, except S2 orbits Sgr-A, not a VHP.  Earth orbits the sun, not a VHP.  It seems few things have one.

Please see the following excellent image (It was not set by our scientists - but it is correct by 100%):
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
The blue dots (Apparent motion of the solar system) shows the orbital motion of the sun around its virtual host point (Orange ball).

This image just show the orbital movement of the sun around Its VHP1. You shouldn't monitor the blue dots in order to get an idea about the orbital velocity. We actually know this data. It sets one full cycle in 60 million years..

If I shouldn't monitor the blue dots, how is that image 100% correct?  The up/down motion in and out of the disk has a 60 million year period.  The in-out period towards and away from the center has a 200 million year period.  The periods are different, so the path isn't a helix at all, and it certainly isn't a tight helix as depicted in that picture.  The picture is wrong in just about every way, but it shows what you want, so you take it for fact instead of actual measurements.  Classic selection bias.

However, can you please advice what is the amplitude/radius of that orbit which our scientists call "wobbling".

There isn't a circle, so there's no radius.  The sine-wave picture you showed was more representative, even if it also showed many more waves per lap than the 3.5 waves.  Work it out.  If the 5-7km/sec speed is anything near accurate, the amplitude of the sine wave in and out of the disk is about 200 LY.  I think I've read that it is more than that, but that's what I compute from 6km/s and a 60 MYear period sin wave.  If there is a VHP associated with that motion, the sun crosses it every 30 million years, and has maximum acceleration when it is furthest from it, not when closest to it as you would expect if there was an actual object with mass responsible for that motion.  Orbital motion has a fixed axis, and your biocab picture does not depict motion about any axis.

Please - I don't think that we should de- estimate the ability of "somebody with no credentials".

If they draw that picture and present it as fact, then I can de-estimate them all I want.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

For instance, the moon currently has an average recession rate of 3.8 cm/year, but that rate was larger in the past at times, and smaller at other times

How do you know that?
Do you have any valid measurements to prove this idea, or is it based on current concept?
Based on my understanding this recession rate of 3.8 cm/year was never ever larger in the past

The formula references nothing from these past rates, only the current rate, which isn't hysteresis.

Please do not confuse the following formula F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2 with hysteresis.
This formula gives the data about the radius in the past or into the future.
F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2
If we know the value Δ we can calculate what was the radius 1 billion years ago, and what it should be in the next one billion.
But that information is not hysteresis.
hysteresis means that if the moons orbit around the Earth than it will continue to do so even if there will be a nearby object with much stronger gravity force (sun).

In fact nothing in our solar system has a VHP since they all directly orbit some mass.

That is correct.

Perhaps the sun doesn't,

That is also correct.

but you've not described how to compute the location of its VHP or how the motion of an object relates to that VHP.

Thanks for the question.

There isn't a circle, so there's no radius.  The sine-wave picture you showed was more representative, even if it also showed many more waves per lap than the 3.5 waves.  Work it out.  If the 5-7km/sec speed is anything near accurate, the amplitude of the sine wave in and out of the disk is about 200 LY.  I think I've read that it is more than that, but that's what I compute from 6km/s and a 60 M Year period sin wave.  If there is a VHP associated with that motion, the sun crosses it every 30 million years, and has maximum acceleration when it is furthest from it, not when closest to it as you would expect if there was an actual object with mass responsible for that motion.  Orbital motion has a fixed axis, and your biocab picture does not depict motion about any axis.

Thanks
If I understand you correctly, the sun is located about 200LY above the disc
Please look at the following diagram:
https://www.space.com/10532-earth-biodiversity-pattern-trace-bobbing-solar-system-path.html
So the sun is located 200 LY above the disc and  it is still moving up.
Based on your explanation in order for the sun to set full cycle it needs to get all the way down, crossing the disc to the same downwards amplitude (200LY) and then get back again to the same distance from the galactic plane.
Therefore, 60 million years is needed for just one cycle.
However - this is a severe mistake.
The Sun has no need to cross the galactic disc plane.
If it is currently high above the disc(200 LY) it will stay above the disc as long as needed.
It will just need to orbit around its VHP1 (as any other nearby star does).

what about the mass of some object that is far closer: Does that divert the sun?  What if the mass is strong enough to pull the sun away from its VHP?

Based on hysteresis it is clear that the sun will continue to orbit around its VHP1 even if there will be a nearby mass with much stronger gravity force. So, the sun is going to orbit its VHP1 as long as it takes.

These are really trivial questions with Newtonian physics, and I only need that one formula, plus F=ma to compute the motion of anything.  Force on the moon from the sun is greater than force from Earth, therefore the moon always accelerates towards the sun, even when between the two.  It only accelerates straight towards Earth when Earth is between the two and the sun and Earth are pulling in the same direction.  That's what it means for one force to be greater than the other.  The moon always accelerates primarily towards the greater force.  It does not mean that it directly orbits the thing with the greater force.

That is clear.

Anyway, I cannot make any of these observations with your physics since you don't tell me how to compute the location of a VHP or how to compute the motion in relation to that VHP.  It is why I cannot predict where my 3 unit-masses will go.  Your theory is absent and I can make no predictions.

My theory is based on the data which is available to all of us.
I would recommend to look at the nearby stars and verify their relatively orbital velocity.
If I understand it correctly, we see that their relatively maximal velocity is about 15 Km/sec in all direction. So, by average they are moving at about 7.5 Km/s around their VHP. That should also be correct for our sun. If that is correct, and assuming that the radius of VHP1 is about 2LY, we can extract the expected cycle time for one full VHP1 cycle. Do you agree?

Yes, I get the 6 points

Thanks

You mentioned it having an elliptic orbit around it sort of like S2 does, except S2 orbits Sgr-A, not a VHP. 

No, I disagree.
S2 orbits around its VHP1. (although it might have much shorter radius to that VHP1 than our sun to its VHP1).
In any case, I'm quite sure that even the VHP1 of S2 does not directly orbit around the SMBH.
It orbits around VHP2 while this one might orbit around the SMBH.
So, S2 orbits around VHP1 that orbits around VHP2 that orbits around SMBH.
However, we will discuss about it once we get to the bulge.

The picture is wrong in just about every way, but it shows what you want, so you take it for fact instead of actual measurements

Thanks
However, if the estimated orbital radius of sun around its VHP1 is about 2LY, with an orbital velocity of about 7.5 Km/s than this picture might be after all fully correct.


.

[Halc]

For instance, the moon currently has an average recession rate of 3.8 cm/year, but that rate was larger in the past at times, and smaller at other times

How do you know that?
Do you have any valid measurements to prove this idea, or is it based on current concept?

Admittedly current understanding.  It assumes Newtonian physics isn't nonsense.

Based on my understanding this recession rate of 3.8 cm/year was never ever larger in the past

It is definitely measured to be currently slowing, which means it was larger in the recent past.

I don't know how old Earth is in your theory since you deny classical ways (such as nuclear physics) of aging stars and such.  I suppose you would need to measure the recession rate of the sun from the galactic center and extrapolate its age from that.

This formula gives the data about the radius in the past or into the future.
F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2

It's a formula for force, not radius.  Kindly show an example of this formula for a real object (say the moon) since, as I said, it is totally unclear how to add two numbers of different units. You can do it for the current force between Earth and moon, since you supposedly know its Δ.

But that information is not hysteresis.
hysteresis means that if the moons orbit around the Earth than it will continue to do so even if there will be a nearby object with much stronger gravity force (sun).

I see you've ignored everything I've posted on this, and even state that my explanation on it makes things clear for you (quoted below), but it seems it was not clear.

In fact nothing in our solar system has a VHP since they all directly orbit some mass.

That is correct.

And yet the new moon accelerates away from Earth, something it seemingly should not do if its motion is determined by the Earth and not by Newton's laws.  Or are you denying that the moon accelerates away from us during a new moon?

but you've not described how to compute the location of its VHP or how the motion of an object relates to that VHP.

Thanks for the question.

I've only asked that one about 20 times

The location of VHP1 (VHP1 is the first orbital level of any star in the galaxy) is based on the amplitude of the wobbling activity.

So it cannot be predicted at all.   You watch where it goes, and you theory says that's where it should go.  That's making predictions after the things happen.  You don't know.  That's why you could not find the VHP of any of the 3 objects in my simple example. You were not able to watch it for a while and then guess where the 'wobbling' put each of the VHPs.  Guess what, Newtonian physics doesn't need to watch first.  It has a concrete prediction answer as to where those objects will go.  The physics needs some adjustments for relativity to be exactly correct, but for small masses at small speeds, it is impressively accurate.
Your answer is worthless because you have to watch where it goes first, and then declare that your theory predicted that path, and even then cannot extend that pattern into future moments because none of those objects will have a regular 'wobble' about some VHP.  Regular motion only works with objects that can be reduced to pairs like everything in our solar system.  The sun has no regular motion, and requires full information of all mass in the galaxy to predict its path.

There isn't a circle, so there's no radius.  The sine-wave picture you showed was more representative, even if it also showed many more waves per lap than the 3.5 waves.  Work it out.  If the 5-7km/sec speed is anything near accurate, the amplitude of the sine wave in and out of the disk is about 200 LY.  I think I've read that it is more than that, but that's what I compute from 6km/s and a 60 M Year period sin wave.  If there is a VHP associated with that motion, the sun crosses it every 30 million years, and has maximum acceleration when it is furthest from it, not when closest to it as you would expect if there was an actual object with mass responsible for that motion.  Orbital motion has a fixed axis, and your biocab picture does not depict motion about any axis.

Thanks
If I understand you correctly, the sun is located about 200LY above the disc

I said nothing about where we are now in that cycle.  I said the amplitude of that sine-motion is about 200LY, and that based on one bit of data from a very unreliable site.  I said I think the real amplitude is larger than that, but still of the same order of magnitude.  I did not look up our current location relative to the mean (middle) of the disk.

Please look at the following diagram:
https://www.space.com/10532-earth-biodiversity-pattern-trace-bobbing-solar-system-path.html
So the sun is located 200 LY above the disc and  it is still moving up.

Moving up yes.  The site says nothing about our current offset or the amplitude of the wave, but if we have 10 million years to go, we're closer to the middle right now than we are to the peak of that wave.

That site shows way too many waves per rotation around the galaxy, but not nearly as many as the biocab site did.

Based on your explanation in order for the sun to set full cycle it needs to get all the way down, crossing the disc to the same downwards amplitude (200LY) and then get back again to the same distance from the galactic plane.

As the picture shows, yes.  It doesn't show numbers, but it shows the disk (dotted white) being crossed twice per wave like that.

Therefore, 60 million years is needed for just one cycle.

A figure in that range is consistent across several sites, yes.

Sorry - this is a severe mistake.

Well, you have to forgive those guys for going with physics that works.  Not sure why they'd want to do that.

The Sun has no need to cross the disc plane.

Every picture you post shows the sun crossing the plane (frequently), and yet now you say it doesn't do that.

If it is currently high above the disc(200 LY) it will stay above the disc as long as needed.

Where does this need come from?  How do you explain something not being attracted south when almost all of the mass of the galaxy is in that direction?  I can't say you're wrong since you've totally denied gravitational pull from mass.

It will just need to orbit around its VHP1 as all the other nearby stars do.

Does the sun bring its VHP up there with it?  The VHP doesn't come down because it has no mass, and the sun is not attracted to the mass below it, but rather to the VHP which 'needs' to be up there for some purpose.

Your story gets more and more entertaining.

Based on hysteresis it is clear that the sun will continue to orbit around its VHP1 even if there will be a nearby mass with much stronger gravity force. So, the sun is going to orbit its VHP1 as long as it takes.

As long as it takes for what?  Is there some purpose that needs to be completed before it can let go of the VHP?

These are really trivial questions with Newtonian physics, and I only need that one formula, plus F=ma to compute the motion of anything.  Force on the moon from the sun is greater than force from Earth, therefore the moon always accelerates towards the sun, even when between the two.  It only accelerates straight towards Earth when Earth is between the two and the sun and Earth are pulling in the same direction.  That's what it means for one force to be greater than the other.  The moon always accelerates primarily towards the greater force.  It does not mean that it directly orbits the thing with the greater force.

That is clear.

Apparently not so clear given what you're still posting above.  You still seem to find this hysteresis necessary to explain why the moon orbits Earth.

It is why I cannot predict where my 3 unit-masses will go.  Your theory is absent and I can make no predictions.

My theory is based on the data which is available to all of us.

That's predicting where it will go after it has already gone there.  A prediction does it without the data being available ahead of time.  I gave the current conditions.  Classic theory can predict the motion from just that.  Your idea cannot.

Sorry - this is a severe mistake.

Exactly.

I would recommend to look at the nearby stars and verify their relatively orbital velocity.
If I understand it correctly, we see that their relatively maximal velocity is about 15 Km/sec in all direction. So, by average they are moving at about 7.5 Km/s around their VHP. That should also be correct for our sun. If that is correct, and assuming that the radius of VHP1 is 2LY, we can extract the expected cycle time for one full VHP1 cycle. Do you agree?

If any object moves at 7.5 km/s in a circle of radius 2 LY, yes you can extract the cycle time from that, and fairly trivially. What does that have to do with anything?

The picture is wrong in just about every way, but it shows what you want, so you take it for fact instead of using actual measurements

Thanks

That wasn't a compliment.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This formula gives the data about the radius in the past or into the future.
F=GMm/(R+tΔ)^2

It's a formula for force, not radius.  Kindly show an example of this formula for a real object (say the moon) since, as I said, it is totally unclear how to add two numbers of different units. You can do it for the current force between Earth and moon, since you supposedly know its Δ.

I don't understand why you claim that I add two different units.
Let's look at the following at the following value of updated radius:
R(At time t≥0) = R(at time t=0)+tΔ
t = time (let's assume in years)
Δ = drifting outwards speed in Km per year
If t=T = 1 year
than
tΔ = TΔ = drifting distance in 1 year
Therefore,
As R is represented in Km
than
1 year * Δ = drifting distance in Km (in that one year time period)
Hence, with regards to our moon:
We need to present the value of Δ in km instead of by cm.
therefore:
Δ(moon)= 3.8cm/year = (3.8 / 10^5)km/year.
Therefore, the expected Earth/moon radius by next year should be as follow:
R(t=one year from now) = R(t=0, the current radius) km + 1 * (3.8/10^5) Km
What is wrong with that?
In any case, the value of Δ might increase over time but it should never ever decrease over time.
So, for just few years - we can assume that the value of Δ is 3.8 cm/year.
However, it is clear to me that if we will verify the real value in 1 billion years from now, that value should be higher.
In the same token the real value of Δ in 1 billion years ago was smaller than the current value..
I do believe that for any orbital system we can extract the value of Δ without any need for measuring it.
That value must be a function of the masses, current radius and some constant.
However, I'm not sure that I can offer currently the correct formula for Δ.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

4. Spiral arm

Does the sun bring its VHP up there with it?  The VHP doesn't come down because it has no mass, and the sun is not attracted to the mass below it, but rather to the VHP which 'needs' to be up there for some purpose.

It seems to me that you still don't understand how VHP works.
So, let me do it for one more time:
The Sun does not bring it's VHP anywhere. It works the opposite way.
The Sun' VHP1 brings the Sun everywhere it goes..
 So, the Sun orbits around its personal VHP1.This VHP1 must obey to the gravity law in the galaxy and in the spiral arms.
In order to understand why VHP1 fully obey to gravity law in the spiral arms we have to monitor the density of G-star in the arm.
Let's look at the following article:
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, based on this article, we know that 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"
64 * 7 = 448
So, in each 50LY sphere in the arm there are about 64 stars.
That is not a density wave and not even close to density wave.
That shows that there is a fixed/constant G stars density in our aria in the arm.
that fixed density set the requested gravity which is needed to hold all the stars in the Orion arm.
In a density wave (or if the stars were wobbling as our scientists estimate) we should see different densities - as the stars are crossing the arm is some sort of a random movement and also moving up and down while they cross the disc)
We can compare it to the flash in our arm. The density of the flash is almost the same. If we try to measure the density of flash outside our arm, we should find that as there is no arm, there is also no flash over there. Therefore, outside our arm the density of the flash is Zero.
In the same token, outside the spiral arm, the star density should drop to ZERO!!!
I don't claim that the arm is a very nice pipe with a diameter of 1,000KL.
In some arias nearby it might be thicker or narrower. However, at any nearby aria it must have the same G-star density!!!
Exactly 64 stars in 50LY sphere!
So, outside the spiral arm there are no stars. (Especially not a single star – as there is no gravity force to hold it in the arm.
There might be some bridges between the arms, but even in the bridge it is expected to find similar star density..
If one star will dare to move outwards the am it would be kicked out from the arm and from the disc at ultra high velocity.
We are so lucky that our sun is located between all of those nearby stars.
They are not just crossing by stars.
They are our Sun' brothers. They all might have been created more or less at the same time.
They are together for very long time.
Each one of those stars orbits around its VHP1. If we are located 200Ly above the galactic disc, than all of us should stay where we are..
Based on 65 Stars per 50 LY sphere, I would assume that the orbital cycle of each star around its personal VHP1 should be in the range of 2LY (or less).
If we could find the exact location of VHP1 for all the nearby stars, we might find that the relative velocity between the VHP1 is almost zero.
There might be a room for small drifting of VHP1 in the arm, but overall, they must keep the same density at this range from the center of the galaxy.
If we move closer to the galaxy center, the density should be higher. If we move further away from the center the density might be lower.
Therefore, we get the following image of the galactic disc.
It is thicker as we move to the center while it is thinner as we move further away.
Please look at the following image of the milky way disc:
https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-the-Milky-Way
So, spiral arm is an object. (A real object)
It is made out of stars, while the disc is made out of arms.

[Halc]

It seems to me that you still don't understand how VHP works.
So, let me do it for one more time:
The Sun does not bring it's VHP anywhere. It works the opposite way.
The Sun' VHP1 brings the Sun everywhere it goes..

Fine.  What brings the VHP of the sun up out of the disk such that the sun will not return to the disk as you describe?
From what you've said, the VHP follows the sun because you need to watch the sun to determine where the VHP is, not watch/compute the VHP to determine where the sun will go.  That's why I'm proposing that the sun takes its VHP with it, not the other way around.  All your descriptions work with the sun determining the VHP instead of the other way around like you're trying to assert here again.  But you obviously have no idea where to put the VHP except to let the sun's motion determine it, which is the VHP following the sun, or its motion being determined by the sun, not the sun's motion being determined by the VHP.

Each one of those stars orbits around its VHP1. If we are located 200Ly above the galactic disc, than all of us should stay where we are.

If the VHP is not located in the middle of the arm, then that explains why the sun might stay permanently to one side.  But every one of the pictures you link (instead of actual survey data) shows the path of the sun crossing the plane of the disk twice with each oscillation north and south.  You claim these pictures are 100% accurate, and yet here you claim that our motion is local and held for a long time (through many orbits about the VHP) to one side of the disk where our VHP holds us.

Based on 65 Stars per 50 LY sphere, I would assume that the orbital cycle of each star around its personal VHP1 should be in the range of 2LY (or less).

You suggest here and in a prior post that the VHP is only 2 light years from here (closer than any star) and that we trace a sort of orbital path around that virtual point, which is a complete violation of Newtonian forces.  There is negligible mass inside that small circle (most of it being our own Oort cloud), and thus gravity cannot be the force that accounts for that motion.

So, the Sun orbits around its personal VHP1.This VHP1 must obey to the gravity law in the galaxy and in the spiral arms.

Gravity law says nothing about a personal VHP, which is not subject to gravity since it has no mass, or if it does, you give no indication on how much or where it comes from, or why that mass is not drawn to the mass of the disk.  Gravity law says an object will go where the forces from gravity take it, and not where the VHP takes it.  If you're going to propose a different law, don't quote the law that you deny.

We can compare [star density in spiral arms] to the flash in our arm. The density of the flash is almost the same. If we try to measure the density of flash outside our arm, we should find that as there is no arm, there is also no flash over there. Therefore, outside our arm the density of the flash is Zero.
In the same token, outside the spiral arm, the star density should drop to ZERO!!!

It is called flesh.  Anyway, perhaps you could consult actual survey data to verify that the star density between arms is zero, because that would indeed sink the density wave theory, and finding a non-zero density would sink your idea.  Pick a spot that doesn't have one of these inter-arm pipes doing a high-speed transfer.

Each one of those stars orbits around its VHP1. If we are located 200Ly above the galactic disc, than all of us should stay where we are..

So all those pictures that are 100% accurate are in fact 100% nonsense?  Not somewhere in between?  One of the few things that I agreed with was that each picture shows our motion crossing the plane of the disk periodically.  I just didn't like the period that most of them depicted.

If we could find the exact location of VHP1 for all the nearby stars, we might find that the relative velocity between the VHP1 is almost zero.

But you cannot find it because no star moves like that.  How does the star determine where its VHP is and thus where it should go? By watching itself and noting the middle of its orbital path?  Do you not see the absurdity of this?  If you cannot find the VHP from a given state, how can the sun?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It is called flesh.  Anyway, perhaps you could consult actual survey data to verify that the star density between arms is zero, because that would indeed sink the density wave theory, and finding a non-zero density would sink your idea.  Pick a spot that doesn't have one of these inter-arm pipes doing a high-speed transfer

Yes!
I fully agree!
If you can find a single star hanging between the arms by itself, than my theory is none relevant by definition.
But please, don't show me an image of far end galaxies. Just a clear image from the nearby aria.
Try to find one single star that is there by itself between the Orion arm and any nearby arm.
However, as I'm sure by 99.9..9% that you won't find it, than this should "indeed sink the density wave theory".

You suggest here and in a prior post that the VHP is only 2 light years from here (closer than any star) and that we trace a sort of orbital path around that virtual point, which is a complete violation of Newtonian forces.  There is negligible mass inside that small circle (most of it being our own Oort cloud), and thus gravity cannot be the force that accounts for that motion.

Why do you insist to ignore my explanation again and again.
Why do you insist to see real object at VHP while I have stated clearly that it is Virtual point.
No real object is there!!!
I wonder what I should say to open your eyes.
So, if I will say that there is a dark matter, would it be more logical for you?
If so, think about virtual dark matter.
You don't see it; you don't smell it and you don't feel it.
It is there becouse I said that it is there.
If our scientists can set a dark matter at the center of the galaxy, why can't I set a dark matter at the VHP?
If Newton can work for the dark matter while it is at the center of the galaxy, why it can't work for the dark matter at the VHP1?
Again I use the dark matter just to show you a possibility that there is an effective mass at the VHP point which is used as a host for our sun. In reality - there is nothing over there (Not even dark matter).
However, please think about dark matter if it is more convenient to you.
I assume that anyone who accepts the idea of dark matter at the center of the galaxy should also accept the idea of dark matter at that VHP1.

[Halc]

If you can find a single star hanging between the arms by itself, than my theory is none relevant by definition.

https://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm is a nice note about the problems with the model of arms being objects, and why that theory doesn't produce observed results.  It proposes several alternatives, density wave theory being only one of them.
The reason I linked it is because it also says this near the front:
"There are many stars that are also in-between the spiral arms, but they tend to be the dimmer stars (G, K, M-type stars).".  My simple google search turned up countless sites that verify this, but none that state than the space between arms is devoid of stars.

But please, don't show me an image of far end galaxies. Just a clear image from the nearby aria.

Any image would be taken from inside the orion arm and shows orion stars nearby.  An image by itself does not show distance, and hence where those stars actually are.  For that you need parallax data or some other method of computing distance.  Hence you consult survey data, not some image.
Of course you will not do that since it is easier to just stand on your box and make up your data.  Real science is work.

You suggest here and in a prior post that the VHP is only 2 light years from here (closer than any star) and that we trace a sort of orbital path around that virtual point, which is a complete violation of Newtonian forces.  There is negligible mass inside that small circle (most of it being our own Oort cloud), and thus gravity cannot be the force that accounts for that motion.

Why do you insist to ignore my explanation again and again.
Why do you insist to see real object at VHP while I have stated clearly that it is Virtual point.
No real object is there!!!

I didn't claim there was a real object there.  I'm asking why the sun would circle a region of space with nothing in it?  What forces could possibly account for that motion?  Without force, mass tends to move in a straight line, at least according to Newton, but you seem to be discarding Newton's laws without replacing them.  You have the sun pulling this incredibly high acceleration without any valid force to account for that.  Such acceleration would be very measurable, and yet we don't see it.  So it doesn't take this nonsense 2 LY radius path.  That is total fiction.

I wonder what I should say to open your eyes.
So, if I will say that there is a dark matter, would it be more logical for you?

It wouldn't be virtual then, but it would at least explain a tight orbit like that.  We're a binary star after all orbiting a massive dark companion.  But we don't take a path like that.  You're just making all that up.

If so, think about virtual dark matter.
You don't see it; you don't smell it and you don't feel it.
It is there becouse I said that it is there.
If our scientists can set a dark matter at the center of the galaxy, why can't I set a dark matter at the VHP?

Then it would be real, not virtual.  The dark matter at the center of the galaxy is a black hole, which is dark by definition.  All you see is the radiation from the material falling into it.  Any such dark object that close to the sun would be very visible by watching the material near it.

If Newton can work for the dark matter while it is at the center of the galaxy, why it can't work for the dark matter at the VHP1?

So are you changing your VHP idea now to some proposal that there is an actual non-luminous chunk of matter assigned to every star?  That still doesn't explain how we stay above the galactic disk since any VHP with mass would be attracted to the mass of the disk same as a luminous chunk of mass.  What goes up must come down, unless you throw it fast enough, and we have nowhere near the velocity needed to escape the plane of the disk. Something as tiny as Earth has a higher escape velocity than that.

Again I use the dark matter just to show you a possibility that there is an effective mass at the VHP point which is used as a host for our sun. In reality - there is nothing over there (Not even dark matter). [/quote]Then what force accelerates the sun in such a tight orbit?  Can't be the gravity of the VHP since it has no mass.  Can't be the gravity of other objects or the arm since none of that material is so close that the sun passes it during that tight circle.  So where does the force come from to account for that significant acceleration that nobody has ever noticed?

I assume that anyone who accepts the idea of dark matter at the center of the galaxy should also accept the idea of dark matter at that VHP1.

Sgr-A is not usually listed as dark matter since the thing is quite visible, even if only by virtue of the material falling into it.  So nobody proposes significant dark matter at the center of the galaxy, which would give all objects a much more Keplerian rotation curve than what is observed.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

https://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm
is a nice note about the problems with the model of arms being objects, and why that theory doesn't produce observed results.  It proposes several alternatives, density wave theory being only one of them.
The reason I linked it is because it also says this near the front:
"There are many stars that are also in-between the spiral arms, but they tend to be the dimmer stars (G, K, M-type stars).".  My simple google search turned up countless sites that verify this, but none that state than the space between arms is devoid of stars.

Sorry.
There is no real data in that article.
It just show that our scientists have no clue about spiral arms and the disc.
In any case, yes - I agree with them that there are many stars in - between the spiral arms - but only as a bridge between the arms and only while they carry the same/similar density as in our aria (64 stars per 50LY sphere)
In this article they don't say even one word about the possibility that there are wide aria without even a single star.
Therefore, this article is none relevant for our discussion.

VHP -
Let me try to explain it for you one more time:
The VHP1 is a direct outcome of the star forming activity in the gas cloud.
I have stated that in order to set a star from a gas cloud, the matter must rotate around the center of the gas cloud (as a tornado). However, as the matter orbits around the center of the gas cloud, in the center itself, there are no real matter. Most of the matter drifts outwards and crystallize into new star. So, during the process of star forming, the star orbits around the center of the gas cloud, while in this gas cloud there is no matter in the center. Therefore, that center of the gas cloud represents the location of VHP1 for any new born star.
However, this gas cloud also set a gravity impact/"connection" with its nearby aria, as the center of the gas cloud represents its center of gravity.
So, the gas cloud is "connected" to its nearby aria by the gravity which is represented by the location of its center.
However, that gravity center also represents the Sun VHP1 as it had been emerged from the gas cloud.
Due to hysteresis from now on the nearby aria "see" that VHP1 as the host center of the Sun.
Is it clear to you?
If not, than please try to accept it as is.
One of the key element in this discussion is VHP.
I have stated that:

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.

VHP = Virtual host Point.
There in nothing there. However, the sun directly orbits around that Virtual point. It also represents an effective mass due to the orbital cycle of the sun around that point.
You have agreed to accept this idea.
So please - take it as is and at the end of my introduction you are more than welcome to disagree.
So, VHP1 should represent the following:
1. The sun orbits directly around VHP1.
2. VHP1 represents an effective Sun' mass due to the Sun orbital movement around that point. In order to extract it, we need to monitor the orbital of the sun (around VHP1) and its velocity (as we did for S2 in order to extract the SMBH mass)
Please, would you kindly accept this idea for this discussion?
We can discuss it later on after introducing the full theory.

[Halc]

Sorry.
There is no real data in that article.

Nor is there any real data in most articles you link. I linked to it for the comment that there were such stars everywhere, and for the bonus explanation of why arms cannot be objects.  I see you could not refute the argument presented.
If I find a star between the arms, you'll claim it is one of these bridges between arms.  So it is quite up to you to find a 100 light year radius space between the arms with no stars since this would actually be heavy evidence against density wave theory.

In this article they don't say even one word about the possibility that there are wide aria without even a single star.

Yes they do, and I quoted the words.  They say there isn't one.  All the sites I found that mention the subject say this.

Therefore, this article is none relevant for our discussion.

It doesn't match your fiction, therefore the data is not relevant.  I knew this reply was coming when I posted that link.

So, during the process of star forming, the star orbits around the center of the gas cloud, while in this gas cloud there is no matter in the center. Therefore, that center of the gas cloud represents the location of VHP1 for any new born star.
However, this gas cloud also set a gravity impact/"connection" with its nearby aria, as the center of the gas cloud represents its center of gravity.
So, the gas cloud is "connected" to its nearby aria by the gravity which is represented by the location of its center.
However, that gravity center also represents the Sun VHP1 as it had been emerged from the gas cloud.

How can the gas all move to one side and become the star and leave the center of gravity somewhere else?  The center of gravity of the sun is in the middle of the sun.  It doesn't orbit itself.
If a VHP is the center of gravity of something, how can the sun orbit a VHP 2 LY away when there is no significant mass in that volume except the sun at the very edge of the circle?  Center of gravity means there is other mass out there, not necessarily any at the center, but it balances.  If you take a sheet of material and put mass everywhere around it to represent several objects, the sheet will balance exactly if held by its center of gravity, and it will balance nowhere else.  But a 2 LY radius sheet with only the sun at one edge and a couple trivial mass planets is going to fall over with all the weight on one side like that.

The center of gravity of any object is itself, and not a VHP.  The center of gravity of a group of objects is somewhere else, and with two (and no more) objects, the two may or may not orbit that center of gravity.  The sun has no binary companion, so it has no orbital relationship with a star or group of stars.

You never brought up center of gravity with my 3-equal-weight object example.  You never suggested that the VHP of any of the objects might be the center of gravity of the group or the center of gravity of the remaining two objects.  Your descriptions imply that a VHP is just some virtual point that is permanently married to a star despite all the mass around that star possibly going its separate ways.  That is not a description of the center of mass of anything.

Due to hysteresis from now on the nearby aria "see" that VHP1 as the host center of the Sun.
Is it clear to you?

Yes, its quite clear.  It is also completely wrong.  Nothing can 'see' a massless virtual point.  If it is the center of mass of a collection of objects, the what is 'seen' is the collection of objects, not the center of mass of the group or the VHP of each individual object if they all have different VHPs.
Your inability to describe the motion of the most trivial 3-body system shows that the idea is nonsense.

If not, than please try to accept it as is.

It is clear enough and has been for a while.  I have no intention of accepting something like that.

VHP = Virtual host Point.
There in nothing there. However, the sun directly orbits around that Virtual point. It also represents an effective mass due to the orbital cycle of the sun around that point.

If the VHP doesn't have mass, then it doesn't have effective mass either.  It cannot attract anything on its own.  Hence it has no effect at all.

You have agreed to accept this idea.

I agreed to listen, in hopes that the theory would finally get posted, but it is quite clear that there is none, and it never will. So I don't see the point in leading you on. I cannot accept something this so completely wrong from somebody who has demonstrated algebraic manipulation, but not vector arithmetic, which puts you at about late middle-school with your mathematics skills.
I cannot correct anything of yours or be of particular assistance since you seem not to want constructive feedback.  Lack of that desire dooms any hope for your idea.  So no, I can no longer pretend to accept the idea to see where it will go.  I just don't care where it goes if it rests on that foundation.

So please - take it as is and at the end of my introduction you are more than welcome to disagree.

I'm not sure how much more repetitive introduction I can take.

We can discuss it later on after introducing the full theory.

You have no such thing.  I don't believe such promises anymore.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the VHP doesn't have mass, then it doesn't have effective mass either.  It cannot attract anything on its own.  Hence it has no effect at all.

O.K.
As the VHP is very critical for you, than let's discuss this issue and see where the main problem is.

So, let's start from the idea that there is one pure gas cloud that orbits around the SMBH (while the matter in the gas cloud rotates at high velocity around the center of the gas cloud - as a Tornado).
1. Do you agree that in this case the gravity works between the centers of the gas cloud to the center of the SMBH?
if so
2. Let's also assume the following: As the matter in the gas cloud rotate around the center of cloud, and due to the Huge gravity impact of the nearby SMBH, at the first phase it crystallized into small objects that continue to orbit around the center of the gas cloud (all over the gas cloud).
So, how does the gravity between the SMBH work with that gas cloud and all of those small objects there?
Do you agree that the gravity still works based on the center of the gas cloud to the center of the SMBH?
If so;
3. Let's assume that those small objects crystallized/merge with each other and set bigger and bigger objects in the cloud. Eventually we might find few significant objects that orbits around the center of that gas cloud.
Do you agree that the gravity still works based on the center of the gas cloud to the center of the SMBH?
If so;
4.Let's assume that eventually we might find that those big objects have merged with each other and set one main massive object which still orbits around the center of that gas cloud. This object consume significant portion of the matter in the gas cloud, so even the matter that was in the center had drifted outwards and become part of this object.
In this case, how the gravity works?
Do you agree that the gravity still works between the center of the SMBH to the center of the gas cloud?
If so, then you have just confirmed why each new born star orbits around a VHP1 (which is located at the center of the gas cloud).
If no, please advice why and how you think the gravity between that new massive orbital object in the gas cloud (which orbits around the center of the gas cloud) to the SMBH should work.

[Halc]

So, let's start from the idea that there is one pure gas cloud that orbits around the SMBH (while the matter in the gas cloud rotates at high velocity around the center of the gas cloud).
1. Do you agree that in this case we can set the gravity calculation between the centers of the gas cloud to the center of the SMBH?

That calculation leads one to false motion.  A gas cloud would be attracted more to a primary mass where it is closer.  The non-uniform gravity would pull the cloud apart and also make the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts.  The cloud is thus pulled into a disk whose center of gravity is eventually the same as that of the black hole.  This happens even to solid objects if the non-uniformity of the gravity exerts greater force that the force of the object's own gravity trying in vain to hold it together.  Hence Saturn having rings right now because a solid object was pulled apart in this manner.  A gas clould is already pulled apart, so it spreads into a ring without resistance.

Yes, a gas cloud at a considerable distance will not be pulled apart like that, but if its components have high relative velocity like you describe, it probably just moves off in separate directions that it is already moving.  Gas clouds that hold together under their own gravity don't have high rotation rates, but they do at least have a meaningful center of gravity.

2. Let's also assume the following: As the matter in the gas cloud rotate around the center of cloud, and due to the Huge gravity impact of the nearby SMBH, at the first phase it crystallized into small objects that continue to orbit around the center of the gas cloud (all over the gas cloud).

A sufficiently dense gas cloud (which is sort of disk shaped if it is near the black hole) would be capable of forming 'objects', yes.  That's how stars form.  S2 is theorized to have formed from a cloud that came from a considerable distance.  Passing near the black hole strips much of that cloud away, but it also triggers star formation in the cloud which was too uniform to do it without the disturbance.
Your idea seems to have the cloud appear continuously near the black hole.  Continuous influx of material leaves it no choice but to form stars, but it is unclear what forces push these objects away to make room for new ones.  You have matter appearing from nothing, so I suppose energy can also come from nowhere, but it still needs reaction mass to give the angular momentum it needs to escape gravity.  There is a reason rockets always immediately tilt to the East to get away from Earth.  It takes much more energy to go straight up, and when you turn the engines off, the straight up rocket just falls right back down again.  Motion to the side (especially the East) allows it to get to and stay at a desired altitude.  Rockets bring their own reaction mass with them  No idea how your stars do it, or the moon for that matter since you deny classic sources of that lateral force.

So, how the gravity between the SMBH and that gas cloud with all of those small objects work?
Do you agree that it still works based on the center of the gas cloud to the center of the SMBH?

I never agreed to that, so I don't still agree.  The gas cloud forms a ring or disk whose center of gravity is the black hole itself.  The motion of the gas cloud is not approximated by a point mass at that location.

3. Let's assume that those small objects crystallized with each and set bigger and bigger objects in the cloud.
Eventually we might find few significant objects that orbits around the center of that gas cloud.

Sure, since the center of the gas cloud is the black hole.

Do you agree that the gravity still works based between the center of the gas cloud to the center of the SMBH?

They're the same point.  No, gravity does not act on the center of gravity of multiple objects.  It acts on the objects.  Jupiter and Saturn form a center of gravity that is at some virtual location that moves around the solar system.  Nothing is attracted to that virtual point.  Anything that passes very near that point will not be diverted in the least by it.  Virtual points do not have mass, and gravity acts only on mass.

Let's assume that eventually we might find that those big objects have merged with each other and set one  massive object which still orbits around the center of that gas cloud. This object consume significant portion of the matter in the gas cloud, so even the matter that was in the center had drifted outwards and become part of this object.
In this case, how the gravity works?

If all of the matter of the cloud collects into one object, then the center of mass of the cloud is now the center of mass of the object.  You can't move the matter without moving the center of mass.  If the cloud creates two objects, then the center of mass of that material is somewhere between those two objects, and given where they are (near a black hole), neither will take any notice of this center of mass.  They will each orbit the black hole, and they would need to do so at a sufficiently large distance to form in the first place.  Close to the black hole (say about one AU from Sgr-A), a star would be torn apart by the gravity gradient and reduced to a disk again.

Do you agree that the gravity still works between the center of the SMBH to the center of the gas cloud even if there is a significant object which orbits around the center of that gas cloud (while the center of the gas cloud has no significant matter or even without any matter?

Why would you suggest I agree to something like this? How can something big orbit a near massless thing?  That makes no sense.  Objects orbit other masses.  Massless things have no significant pull and cannot exert the force necessary to alter the otherwise straight path that said large object would take. The Earth does not orbit Titan, but if Titan were large enough, Earth would indeed orbit it.  And Titan is not exactly a small thing either.  It seems to have more mass than you're giving to this vanishing cloud.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc

You don't agree to accept the idea that VHP1 is actually the center of the gas cloud.
However, how do we know that the current hypothetical ideas about gas cloud, star forming activity, gravity forces near the SMBH and many others ideas are correct?
How do we know that the following message is correct?

Anything that passes very near that point will not be diverted in the least by it.  Virtual points do not have mass, and gravity acts only on mass.

Actually, few years ago, our scientists have discovered a star which is moving very close to the SMBH.
They were expecting for fireworks as the SMBH gravity is going to smash that star.
But surprisingly - that star had not been effected by the mighty SMBH gravity force.
So, time after time our scientists set an expectation and surprisingly - it doesn't work according to their expectations.
You also claim that:

The non-uniform gravity would pull the cloud apart and also make the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts.

Can you prove it?
There are several gas cloud orbiting around the SMBH. Do you see there any cloud that can confirms this theory?
You discuss about rockets:

There is a reason rockets always immediately tilt to the East to get away from Earth.  It takes much more energy to go straight up, and when you turn the engines off, the straight up rocket just falls right back down again.  Motion to the side (especially the East) allows it to get to and stay at a desired altitude.  Rockets bring their own reaction mass with them  No idea how your stars do it, or the moon for that matter since you deny classic sources of that lateral force.

Based on this answer, due to the ultra high gravity force of the galaxy, there is no way for a star to be ejected out without an engine/rocket.
Surprisingly, somehow stars can escape with any rocket:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-star-has-been-kicked-out-of-the-milky-way-it-knows-what-it-did?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1
"But researchers from the University of Michigan have identified one hypervelocity star that appears to have been ejected from the stellar disk rather than the galactic bulge."
If there was a dark matter, why that dark matter couldn't hold that star in the galaxy/disc?
How could it be ejected without any engin?
I have a solid evidence why the current theory about the the density wave and dark matter are a fatal errors:
Please look at the following image of the galactic disc:
https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-the-Milky-Way
We see that as we move further away from the center of the galaxy, the disc became thinner and thinner.
I have explained why based on my theory we get exactly that disc shape.
However, is it possible to get that shape based on the current theory?
Please see the following explanation about Orbital inclination:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination
"Orbital inclination measures the tilt of an object's orbit around a celestial body. It is expressed as the angle between a reference plane and the orbital plane or axis of direction of the orbiting object."
If we look at the solar system, we can find that all the planets/orbital objects has some sort of Orbital inclination:
Mercury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
inclination - 7.005° to ecliptic
Venus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Inclination  3.39458° to ecliptic
Neptune: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
Inclination   1.767975° to ecliptic
Pluto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
Inclination - 17.16°
It is clear that as we move further away from the center, the impact of that Inclination is more visible:
For pluto we see it very clear as it is located far away from all the other planets in the solar system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#/media/File:Plutoorbit1.5sideview.gif
We see clearly that that at that far end location, the orbital cycle Pluto is moving significantly below/above the disc plane.
So, it is clear that any orbital object has some sort of Inclination if it orbits around a central main host.
Therefore, if the stars in the galaxy were orbiting due to the gravity force of the dark matter we would expect to see that as the radius is longer, the disc should be thicker and thicker. As we move further away the Inclination has more significant impact and therefore it is expected to see a thicker disc at the far end. That fully meets our modeling that I have introduced before..
So, by definition - the current view of the galactic disc contradicts the idea that stars in the galaxy orbit around the galaxy due to main gravity force. (As dark matter).
However, as usual, I'm quite sure that you are not going to let one more evidence about the fatal error in the current concept to confuse you.

S2 is theorized to have formed from a cloud that came from a considerable distance. 

So, from where S2' came from?
What does it mean: "considerable distance?"
Where S2' gas cloud was when S2 had been formed?
How far it was from the SMBH at that time?
What is the age of S2?
Have we ever monitored the process of new star formation in the gas cloud?
Have our scientists really monitored the galactic disc?
Did they really try to see if there are arias without stars?
If they do so, I can promise you that they will find that in some places (between the arms) in a sphere of more than 1000LY there is not even a single star.
You have stated that there are many unclear problems with the current theories/concepts.
My theory fully meets all the evidences.
You have accepted the unrealistic idea of dark matter. But you are not willing to accept the idea of VHP that is vital for my theory.
That is OK with me
I really appreciate your great effort so far.
Thank you.

[Halc]

You don't agree to accept the idea that VHP1 is actually the center of the gas cloud.

I never said I disagree with that, and I don't think you ever said that a VHP was the center of a cloud.  You sometimes indicated that it might be the center of mass (CoM) of that cloud, and I didn't disagree with that definition.  Any collection of mass has a center of mass, and if you want to label that point a VHP, you are welcome to do so.
What I do not agree with is you giving point-mass properties to the CoM, which is not a valid property of the CoM of a collection.  I also do not agree with you moving all the mass to one side but not having the CoM move with it.  If a VHP is the center of mass, then it moves when the material does.  It follows the material, not the other way around.  The material can go anywhere the forces take it (say in totally different directions for example) and the CoM is ineffectual in preventing that. An object (part of the collection or not) can pass close by to that point and be totally unaffected by it.  So the center of mass is not a center of gravity.  There is no such thing as the latter, which is only a mathematical simplification of a reasonably rigid sphere.

However, how do we know that the current hypothetical ideas about gas cloud, star forming activity, gravity forces near the SMBH and many others ideas are correct?

It seems not specific to the SMBH.  Sufficiently dense clouds of gas are capable of producing stars, but since the distribution of gas is fairly uniform, gravity pulls it in no particular direction, so the process needs a seed to start, which often takes the form of a passing mass (like the SMBH) or by a shock wave from an explosion somewhere, which is probably what initiated our solar system.

How do we know that the following message is correct?

Anything that passes very near that point will not be diverted in the least by it.  Virtual points do not have mass, and gravity acts only on mass.

That derives from Newton's equations.  It can be demonstrated with a simple rubber sheet model, which is an illustrative if not exact physical model of Newton's laws.

Actually, few years ago, our scientists have discovered a star which is moving very close to the SMBH.
They were expecting for fireworks as the SMBH gravity is going to smash that star.
But surprisingly - that star had not been effected by the mighty SMBH gravity force.

The black hole is a tiny target, so it is not likely to hit it.  So parts of the star get stripped away if it gets too close, and I'm not sure how much 'fireworks' they expected from that.  Only the radio and IR light gets through, and most of the gas just joins the accretion disk and doesn't actually fall in all at once.  Maybe they underestimated the distance at which it would pass.

So, time after time our scientists set an expectation and surprisingly - it doesn't work according to their expectations.

That happens all the time.  Science would make no progress without it.

The non-uniform gravity would pull the cloud apart and also make the inner parts orbit faster than the outer parts.

Can you prove it?
There are several gas cloud orbiting around the SMBH. Do you see there any cloud that can confirms this theory?

The cloud of which you speak orbit at a considerable distance.  They distort as they get near the black hole, but gravity might be able to pull that distortion back again.  The distortion creates higher and lower density areas and the higher density regions help seed new star formation that would otherwise not have as readily occurred.
As for proving this, it again derives from gravitational law.  I cannot prove it to somebody in denial of such mathematics.

You discuss about rockets:

There is a reason rockets always immediately tilt to the East to get away from Earth.  It takes much more energy to go straight up, and when you turn the engines off, the straight up rocket just falls right back down again.  Motion to the side (especially the East) allows it to get to and stay at a desired altitude.  Rockets bring their own reaction mass with them  No idea how your stars do it, or the moon for that matter since you deny classic sources of that lateral force.

Based on this answer, due to the ultra high gravity force of the galaxy, there is no way for a star to be ejected out without an engine/rocket.

High force has nothing to do with it, and the gravity force of the galaxy is quite low (many orders of magnitude less than 1g) no matter where you measure it.  Energy is needed to lift an object away from a gravity source, however weak.  The moon cannot drift away on its own.  It needs to acquire energy from somewhere to do that, just like it takes energy to get a vehicle up a hill, which is a direction away from Earth, a local gravity source.

Surprisingly, somehow stars can escape with any rocket

Trust me, those stars have a rocket.  No object can just start to move without a force being applied to it.

"But researchers from the University of Michigan have identified one hypervelocity star that appears to have been ejected from the stellar disk rather than the galactic bulge."
If there was a dark matter, why that dark matter couldn't hold that star in the galaxy/disc?

Every mass has an escape velocity, including the galaxy.  If an object moves faster than that, the mass of the galaxy (doesn't matter if its light or dark) is not enough to bring it back.  We are already moving at 40% of escape velocity, so it doesn't take an insane amount of additional speed to exit the galaxy.

How could it be ejected without any engin?

It wasn't.  It cannot do that without a huge momentum transfer being applied.  It most likely got a boost the same way as the Voyager probes and all other interplanetary objects we send out there.  We don't have vehicles capable of holding the energy required to do that, so we steal momentum from larger objects like moons and planets.  So probably this star was flung out by a close encounter with two larger objects, one of which probably used to be its companion.

I have a random star simulator that regularly ejects the little ones like this, but the simulation has an artificially high density of stars to make such events far more common.

I have a solid evidence why the current theory about the the density wave and dark matter are a fatal errors:
Please look at the following image of the galactic disc:
https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-the-Milky-Way
We see that as we move further away from the center of the galaxy, the disc became thinner and thinner.
I have explained why based on my theory we get exactly that disc shape.
However, is it possible to get that shape based on the current theory?

I didn't see where you posted the solid evidence of anything.  The actual galaxy doesn't look like that.  It is a diagram making some particular point, but we have views of galaxies edge on and they're not nice and clean angled like that.  It's a diagram, not an artist conception, and neither of those would be an actual view.  Yes, the disk apparently gets thinner further out.  I don't see that as solid evidence against the density wave theory or dark matter theory, neither of which explicitly predicts otherwise.

It is clear that as we move further away from the center, the impact of that Inclination is more visible

Pluto isn't a planet, and Mercury has the greatest inclination of the actual planets, and it is the one closest in.  So no, the trend doesn't seem to go that way.  One data point is not a trend.  I actually see no trend in the inclination data.

For pluto we see it very clear as it is located far away from all the other planets in the solar system.

It actually gets nearer than Neptune at Perihelion, so I wouldn't describe that as 'far away'.  It is very close for the Oort object that it is.  The inclination of Oort objects is far more random than that of a planet.

So, it is clear that any orbital object has some sort of Inclination if it orbits around a central main host.

There needs to be a reference for there to be an inclination.  A sole planet orbiting a star has no inclination since it alone defines the plane.  The inclination of the planets in the solar system are all relative to Earth orbital plane.  It could have been say the average inclination, but they chose that.

Since the solar system doesn't orbit a central main host, it has no meaningful inclination to its motion.  The motion is not Keplerian and hence not the same kind of orbit.

Therefore, if the stars in the galaxy were orbiting due to the gravity force of the dark matter we would expect to see that as the radius is longer, the disc should be thicker and thicker.

Dark matter would not be a central main host.  Motion in the galaxy is not comparable to the dynamics of a solar system.

As we move further away the Inclination has more significant impact and therefore it is expected to see a thicker disc at the far end.

You might have a point if the galaxy was a Keplerian system, but it isn't.

S2 is theorized to have formed from a cloud that came from a considerable distance.

So, from where S2' came from?
What does it mean: "considerable distance?"

Further away than the current furthest distance of S2's orbit.

Where S2' gas cloud was when S2 had been formed?

Probably quite close to Sgr-A since that disturbance is what seeded the formation of a concentation of matter from a more uniform gas cloud.  S2 didn't form in a day, so the process doubtlessly took it close and away again repeatedly, but the process was likely started by a close encounter.  Other disturbances might have been the trigger, but Sgr-A is the obvious culprit.

How far it was from the SMBH at that time?

Don't know.  'It' wasn't really a thing with a defined distance when the process started.

What is the age of S2?

Unknown, but probably on the order of 7 digits of years (millions, but not likely 10 million).  This is according to accepted nuclear physics models, something which you've denied.

Have we ever monitored the process of new star formation in the gas cloud?

Yes, but there is not one 'the' gas cloud.

Have our scientists really monitored the galactic disc?

You live in it.

Did they really try to see if there are arias without stars?

The survey database is always being updated.  Many stars have been charted for where they appear and luminosity, but lack distance, which requires multiple measurements.  Plus, they only see the brighter objects.  Between the arms is quite far away and low luminosity stars take a lot of time to see, so they can't survey the entire sky for them in a short period.  It's a lot of work.

You have stated that there are many unclear problems with the current theories/concepts.
My theory fully meets all the evidences.

You don't have a theory.
Yes, any hindsight theory always meets all evidence, since that's all it needs to do is copy the evidence and say it predicts it.

You have accepted the unrealistic idea of dark matter. But you are not willing to accept the idea of VHP that is vital for my theory.

The existence of something that doesn't shine or can pass through a planet without interaction doesn't violate any fundamental laws of physics.  Neutrino's have that property for instance, but they don't mass much.  You seem to be going out of your way to offend every one of those laws, so yes, I am unwilling to accept your ideas.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Did they really try to see if there are arias without stars?

The survey database is always being updated.  Many stars have been charted for where they appear and luminosity, but lack distance, which requires multiple measurements.  Plus, they only see the brighter objects.  Between the arms is quite far away and low luminosity stars take a lot of time to see, so they can't survey the entire sky for them in a short period.  It's a lot of work.

Sorry - I don't agree with this answer.
We have the technology to see clearly S2 and many other S stars which are located 28,000 LY away - directly Near the SMBH at a very complicated aria.
We also have mapped our nearby stars.
We have found that the density of G star at 50LY sphere is identical to the density at 100LY sphere.
So, how could it be that suddenly we don't have the technology to monitor the location of G stars at a sphere of 1,000LY or 4,000 LY around the solar system?
We are located almost at the edge of the spiral arm.
We could easily monitor the aria between the arms near our location.
So, why our scientists do not present this important verification?
Why they hide that key evidence?

You have stated that there are many unclear problems with the current theories/concepts.
My theory fully meets all the evidences.

You don't have a theory.
Yes, any hindsight theory always meets all evidence, since that's all it needs to do is copy the evidence and say it predicts it.

That is incorrect
I have full valid theory. You just don't let me go on.
Based on my theory - there are significant aria between the arms without even one single star.
Our scientists don't offer that idea.
Therefore, by definition I offer an outcome which currently no one considers.
Therefore, I don't offer a solution for what we see.
I set the expectation based on my theory, and currently no one from our scientists expects to see that phenomenon.
We have to verify if my expectations are real. If so, my theory is real. If no - We will set it in the garbage.
However, there must be one roll for any theory.
You have to verify my theory at the same base as you verify any theory including the one which you deeply believe on.
If you find one verification that contradicts any outcome from that theory - than this theory is incorrect by definition.
That should apply to any theory.
However, you actually claim that if we see a contradiction in our scientists' theory than this is perfectly Ok, while if we see a contradiction in any other theory - than this isn't Ok.

So, time after time our scientists set an expectation and surprisingly - it doesn't work according to their expectations.

That happens all the time.  Science would make no progress without it.

Sorry - this isn't science - I would call it science fiction.
It isn't accepted to see any contradiction at any kind of theory - even if 100,001 scientists claim that this is the ultimate theory.
Contradiction is contradiction by definition.
If our scientists verify a contradiction between their expectations to the verified evidences, than - they must set this theory at the garbage of the history and start from point Zero - as we all expected for any theory.
I insist to get the data about G stars between the arms at the nearby aria.
You would find that my expectation is correct by 100%. (Not 90%, not even 99%).
This is real science! That is how our scientists should work.
Set the expectation - and verify if your expectations are correct.
If so - your theory is valid.
If no - please set it at the garbage.
One roll for any theory!