[Dave Lev (OP)]

Nobody claimed that this information was needed for density wave theory.

So, based on the density wave our scientists gave themselves a waiver to skip the need for using any kind of formula for the spiral galaxy shape.
However, when it comes to me, than even the basic spiral formula which is available in the web is not good enough.
I have offered clear explanation about the spiral arms.
I have solved the rotation curve problem based on that formula at the web.
But this isn't good enough.
Actually, based on your reply I clearly see that you didn't even try to understand my message.
You only focus on finding negative aspects before understanding the theory.
This is very clear to me.
Actually, you represents the good old science approach as we had in the past.
Few centuries ago, our scientists were positively sure that we are the center of the Universe.
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/galileo.html
"Galileo's observations strengthened his belief in Copernicus' theory that Earth and all other planets revolve around the Sun. Most people in Galileo's time believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun and planets revolved around it."
"The Catholic Church, which was very powerful and influential in Galileo's day, strongly supported the theory of a geocentric, or Earth-centered, universe. After Galileo began publishing papers about his astronomy discoveries and his belief in a heliocentric, or Sun-centered, Universe, he was called to Rome to answer charges brought against him by the Inquisition (the legal body of the Catholic Church). "
I'm lucky that no one is going to set me on jail.
However, there is no difference in the science community to new ideas between that old time to our current time.
Somehow - the science community believe that the wisdom is located only at their site.
They surly see all the contradictions in their theory - But they still believe that their theory is here to stay forever and ever.
We have spent so long time - while you don't even try to understand the theory.
So what is the difference between the current science community approach to that approach in the past?
At Galileo's days the science community was controlled by the Catholic Church. At that time no one there has tried to understand what that person (Galileo) has found. They didn't want to hear any other idea.
They were sure that the only real theory is the one that they have found.
So, do we still live at the dark days of the science?
It is clear to me that you have no willing to understand my theory.
However, I do appreciate your knowledge in science and all your effort to convince me that my theory is incorrect.
So, what is needed to convince you that there is a fatal mistake in the current theory?
What kind of evidence will help you to understand that my theory is correct?
Or is it too much to ask?

 

[Halc]

So, based on the density wave our scientists gave themselves a waiver to skip the need for using any kind of formula for the spiral galaxy shape.
However, when it comes to me, than even the basic spiral formula which is available in the web is not good enough.

1. I always said it was good enough for the example you were using.
2. The formula for the shape of a spiral is a different one than the formula to compute the length of a portion of that shape.  The latter is what you found on the web, and that formula is mathematically wrong but close enough for the example you were using.
3. Any formula for the shape of the galactic form itself would apply to all theories, and would not be specific to wave theory, yours, or any other.  The galaxy form has a certain shape which I suppose is mathematically describable if you want, but that shape is an observation and its mathematical description seems irrelevant.  A good model will produce a shape something like what we see, and a bad model produces something else.  The ability to mathematically describe the shape seems to be irrelevant to a model being accurate or not.

I have offered clear explanation about the spiral arms.
I have solved the rotation curve problem based on that formula at the web.

And since I've said the formula on the web (which gives an approximate length of an arm segment) is good enough, I've been waiting to see how this solves the rotation curve problem, but you just will not move on to that part.
You seem to deny F=ma, so your solution had better find a good replacement for that, because the whole rotation curve problem revolves around it.

Actually, based on your reply I clearly see that you didn't even try to understand my message.

It took me a long time to see what you were doing.  Most of the confusion was about your refusal to define a 'cycle' even after several posts of asking.

You only focus on finding negative aspects before understanding the theory.

Kind of hard not to when it is so self inconsistent.

Actually, you represents the good old science approach as we had in the past.

Thank you.

Few centuries ago, our scientists were positively sure that we are the center of the Universe.

That model fit well with the empirical evidence at the time. Copernicus posited an alternative view.

I'm lucky that no one is going to set me on jail.

Try going against a church that still puts people in jail (if they're lucky) for doing so. Still happens in places.

They surly see all the contradictions in their theory - But they still believe that their theory is here to stay forever and ever.

If they see contradictions, then they believe quite the opposite. It's why their work is never done.

At Galileo's days the science community was controlled by the Catholic Church.

You think it isn't that way anymore?  I invite you to Kansas schools then.  OK, it may not be specifically Catholics out there, but it is very much the church. They pit themselves against science because its success makes them a threat.  What you are preaching does not, so they'll probably have no problem with your message.  You're safe.

At that time no one there has tried to understand what that person (Galileo) has found. They didn't want to hear any other idea.

You claiming nobody listened to Galileo?  You're wrong about that.

It is clear to me that you have no willing to understand my theory.

I've listened all along, and while the necessary details will remain forever hidden from me, I've done my best to understand and glean the implications of what you are saying, such as the fact that all stars this far out have only 50 million years left in the galaxy, and yet this conflicts with the total lack of stars that have been similarly flung out ahead of us.  Sounds like you're the one that doesn't listen to yourself. You seem to agree with these predictions, and yet don't face the evidence against. You describe a furious lawn sprinkler and yet cannot explain why the grass is not wet yet, like all the water evaporates or something just before hitting the ground, leaving only the twirling shape of the water in the air.

You describe a VHP sometimes as the center of mass of something, but then don't find any mass to define it.  That's completely inconsistent.  If it is a center of mass, then what mass is it the center of?  And then, how does the motion of any object relate to that VHP?  You refuse to answer those questions, which means you don't actually have a theory.  It's not that I prevent you from posting it. No amount of questions will get those answers because clearly you don't even have them.  Science isn't done by some guy saying he has all the answers but will not actually reveal any of it. Nobody will publish that and nobody will publish you. Nobody will teach your theory in the universities because you will not reveal it, due to the lack of its existence.

Now you get stuck for 10 posts about the length of a spiral segment going from 8 to 10 in one lap which is approximately 18π, but you refuse to reveal what possible significance this has, but you spend plenty of time asserting how this revelation will explain everything.  So stop with the promises and deliver how this one number explains something.

However, I do appreciate your knowledge in science and all your effort to convince me that my theory is incorrect.

I don't have that much science behind me.  I need to look up a lot of what I post since there's only so much they teach in schools if you don't major in these things.  The mathematics is more me.  I'm no dunce with numbers or computers.

So, what is needed to convince you that there is a fatal mistake in the current theory?

Depends on what you mean by fatal.  There's always room for improvement, but if you want to contest F=ma, you need to find an explicit empirical evidence that it's wrong, which would be a pretty fatal blow.  If you don't contest it, then you need to identify the forces and reactions necessary for the sort of motion you describe, because right now everything you describe contradicts F=ma.

What kind of evidence will help you to understand that my theory is correct?
Or is it too much to ask?

Show me what's wrong with F=ma.  That is not much evidence that your theory is correct, but it shows at least that all your claims about established science being fatally wrong is true.
I will admit that several of the sites you've linked have incorrect science in them, but the writers of these articles are rarely scientific people themselves. They're journalists and such.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And since I've said the formula on the web (which gives an approximate length of an arm segment) is good enough, I've been waiting to see how this solves the rotation curve problem, but you just will not move on to that part.
You seem to deny F=ma, so your solution had better find a good replacement for that, because the whole rotation curve problem revolves around it.

All my theory is based on Newton law including F=ma.
However, if you agree to accept the following formula:
P =  2πR + πΔR
Than let me explain it again:
A star must ALWAYS stay at the arm. (Let's ignore the bridge or any sort of gateway between the arms).
However, as it stay in the arm it also drifts constantly outwards in the spiral arm.
By doing so, it cross a length of P (in the spiral arm) at a given time T
Therefore, if at t=0 the radius is R1, at t=T it will drift outwards to the radius R2.
The total length that it crosses in the spiral arm is represented by the following formula (for one full orbital cycle):
P =  2πR + π(R2-R1) = 2πR + πΔR

If the star was keeping his orbital radius than the expected total lenth that it had to cross at time T (in a cycle) was 2πR.
However, as it drifts outwards in the spiral arms (at the same time T) and based on that formula we have found that it cross 2πR + πΔR.
Therefore, as the star drifts from R1 to R2 (while it stay at the spiral arm) it increases the length that it cross by πΔR comparing to a star that stay at the same radius (R1).
If you understand that:
Let's use the following example:
Let's assume that star A is located at radius 4KPC from the center.
We know that at that distance it is expected to have an orbital velocity of 200Km/s
So, if the star will stay at that radius during time interval T, it will cross one full cycle which is represented by a length of  2πR (R=4KPC).
So, by definition
2πR/T (at R=4KPC) = 200km/s.
Let's look at another star that is located at R=8KPC.
In order to cross the full cycle in the same T it is clear that its orbital velocity should be double = 400Km/s.
Our sun is located at a radius which is greater than 8KPC.
At our location the expected orbital velocity should be 460 Km/s.
That actually represents the orbital velocity of the arm.
So, at our location, the arm orbits at 460Km/s.
At 8KPC it orbits at 400Km/s
At 4KPC it orbits at 200Km/s
But now we can see the great impact of  ΔP = πΔR.
This ΔP represents the length that the star drifts outwards in the arm.
Due to the spiral shape of the arm the star at time interval T increases its radius by ΔR= R2-R1 = 8KPC - 4KPC = 4KPC,
But it also moved backwards.
so
ΔP↑ - Vector of the drifting outwards (length) in the spiral arm per time interval T
ΔR↑ - Vector of the increased radius per time interval T.
ΔB↑ - Vector of the length that the star moves backwards per time interval T.
ΔP↑= ΔR↑ + ΔB↑
So, ΔB/T gives the negative orbital velocity of the star.
Therefore, we know that the orbital velocity of the arm at the Sun location is 460 Km/s. so if the sun had to stay at the same radius and at the arm, it had to increase its velocity to 460Km/s.
However, as it drifts backwards in the arm at ΔB it reduces its velocity to 220Km/s.
Therefore,
ΔB/T = 460-220 = 240Km/s
So ΔB represents the backwards velocity of the sun in the arm, which is 240Km/s.

Now
Our scientists don't think about that ΔB vector.
Therefore, In order to stay at the same radius and keep the velocity at 220Km/s, the Sun MUST exit from the arm.
That is their fatal mistake.
The Sun will stay at the arm as long as it can, but it must drift outwards. That drifting outwards set the spiral shape of the arms in the galaxy.
I hope that by know you understand why the arm is moving at our location at 460Km/s while the orbital velocity of the Sun is only 220Km/s.
Once you understand that key information I will answer other questions.
So please let me know if you understand this explanation.

[Halc]

All my theory is based on Newton law including F=ma.

Oh.  That add another boatload of contradictions then.  I had been refraining since I had assumed your untold theory would provide replacements for all the current physics which I thought you were denying.

However, if you agree to accept the following formula:
P =  2πR + πΔR
Than let me explain it again:
A star must ALWAYS stay at the arm. (Let's ignore the bridge or any sort of gateway between the arms).
However, as it stay in the arm it also drifts constantly outwards in the spiral arm.
By doing so, it cross a length of P (in the spiral arm) at a given time T
Therefore, if at t=0 the radius is R1, at t=T it will drift outwards to the radius R2.
The total length that it crosses in the spiral arm is represented by the following formula (for one full orbital cycle):
P =  2πR + π(R2-R1) = 2πR + πΔR

Not much use unless you plug some numbers into that.  T=0 for 'now'.  There is no T in that formula, so not sure why it was specified.  R1 is presumably something like 8.2 KPC but you don't give any numbers for the other values, including the time for one 'cycle' which seems to be the time it takes for the form to rotate one more time than how long it takes the sun to go around.  Neither motion is an orbit since orbits don't move like that.
Anyway, the formula computes the length P.  What figure do you get?
I'd plug in numbers for you but I'd rather see you do it.

If the star was keeping his orbital radius than the expected total lenth that it had to cross at time T (in a cycle) was 2πR.

'At time T' is a moment in time, and things take duration to cross a distance.  So I think you mean interval, but both the sun and the arms are moving, so you can't compute it using the absolute speed of either, but rather the difference between the two.  The length of time it takes the sun to go around the galaxy is different than the time it takes for the Orion arm to be at the same orientation relative to us as it is now.
This is why it would really help if you plug numbers into your formula.  It would help me understand what you're trying to convey here.  All I get so far is repetition from prior posts, and you indicated that this P= formula would prove something.

However, as it drifts outwards in the spiral arms (at the same time T) and based on that formula we have found that it cross 2πR + πΔR.

Relative to the form, yes.  P is the amount of arm it traverses in that time (not at that time).  I stress that bit for clarity sake.

Therefore, as the star drifts from R1 to R2 (while it stay at the spiral arm) it increases the length that it cross by πΔR comparing to a star that stay at the same radius (R1).

The one staying at the same radius will exit the arm and the distance it travels relative to that arm isn't really defined any more than is the distance I travel relative to all the cars going by outside. They're not going any particular direction any more than are the arms. So again, not sure what you're trying to say here.  P is a distance relative to the (local) arm, not relative to other parts of the form which are moving with different velocity.

If you understand that:

Sort of.  I asked for clarifications.

Let's use the following example:
Let's assume that star A is located at radius 4KPC from the center.
We know that at that distance it is expected to have an orbital velocity of 200Km/s
So, if the star will stay at that radius during time interval T, it will cross one full cycle which is represented by a length of  2πR (R=4KPC).

Interval T is unspecified, but yes, if the motion is a circular orbit, then one orbit (which one of the things you are calling a cycle) covers that distance, presumably relative to the galaxy and not relative to the rotating form as you described above.  This ambiguity of 'speed relative to unspecified X' is quite confusing.

So, by definition
2πR/T (at R=4KPC) = 200km/s.

Definition of what?  Speed is 200 km/s by observation you mean.  Nothing is defined that way.  You didn't specify orbital period T, but you can work it out from the observed speed.  You seem to be working out the speed from an unspecified T, which doesn't work.  Besides, you used T before to indicate the time to go one 'cycle' relative to the moving form (the arm), not to the stationary galaxy which is what an orbit is.  You need to use different variables for different things.  To use the same ones is again quite confusing.

Let's look at another star that is located at R=8KPC.
In order to cross the full cycle in the same T it is clear that its orbital velocity should be double = 400Km/s.

In order to orbit in the same time, yes.  But it doesn't, unless you are claiming that it does, in which case you're claiming that the measurements taken are fiction.

Our sun is located at a radius which is greater than 8KPC.
At our location the expected orbital velocity should be 460 Km/s.

Only if I expect it to orbit in the same time as the stars at 4KPC, and I don't expect that at all.

That actually represents the orbital velocity of the arm.
So, at our location, the arm orbits at 460Km/s.

The arm goes a bit faster, and it is rotational velocity, not orbital velocity.  But yes, the figure is more or less correct.

At 8KPC it orbits at 400Km/s
At 4KPC it orbits at 200Km/s
But now we can see the great impact of  ΔP = πΔR.

P was the length of a segment of arm, not a speed.  So this says that a segment of arm (a 10° chunk say) is twice as long at twice the radius.  That's right...  it just doesn't relate to the speeds you worked out above, which are arm speeds relative to the galaxy, not arm speeds relative to the local stars.

This ΔP represents the length that the star drifts outwards in the arm.

Well, if it is πΔR, then it is the tangential component of that drift down the length of the arm, which is consistent with the way you defined ΔP and ΔR in post 283.  The total motion down the arm is the vector sum of the two.

Due to the spiral shape of the arm the star at time interval T increases its radius by ΔR= R2-R1 = 8KPC - 4KPC = 4KPC,

You used several different interval T's above.  Which one are we referencing now?  The time it takes for a star to migrate from 4KPC to 8KPC?  You didn't compute that at all.  It isn't one 'cycle' of anything, whatever that is.  You didn't even compute the distance P between those two points since the number of cycles is not known.  It can be done.  The data is there.  But I'm really unclear what you are talking about without seeing what you're actually plugging in to these formulas.

But it also moved backwards.
so
ΔP↑ - Vector of the drifting outwards (length) in the spiral arm per time interval T
ΔR↑ - Vector of the increased radius per time interval T.
ΔB↑ - Vector of the length that the star moves backwards per time interval T.
ΔP↑= ΔR↑ + ΔB↑
So, ΔB/T gives the negative orbital velocity of the star.

Motion with a nonzero net ΔR is not orbital, but yes, I agree with the calculation.

Therefore, we know that the orbital velocity of the arm at the Sun location is 460 Km/s. so if the sun had to stay at the same radius and at the arm, it had to increase its velocity to 460Km/s.
However, as it drifts backwards in the arm at ΔB it reduces its velocity to 220Km/s.
Therefore,
ΔB/T = 460-220 = 240Km/s
So ΔB represents the backwards velocity of the sun in the arm, which is 240Km/s.

We had worked out 480-220=260 in a prior post, but close enough.  So far, all this is pretty repetitive of prior posts.  By your theory we should be progressing out the length of the arm at a tangential rate of about 240 km/s.  The actual rate is higher because ΔR has yet to be worked in.

Now
Our scientists don't think about that ΔB vector.
Therefore, In order to stay at the same radius and keep the velocity at 220Km/s, the Sun MUST exit from the arm.
That is their fatal mistake.

Why?  Yes, they have the arms passing us by one after the other.  You disagree with this, but that disagreement does not demonstrate any inconsistency in the view.  In fact it is sort of a selling point if you ask me.  So what's fatal about their conclusion that the Orion arm will shortly pass us by?  It is moving at over twice our speed after all.

The Sun will stay at the arm as long as it can, but it must drift outwards.

So you assert despite the lack of force driving it on such a trajectory.  The idea violates this Newtonian physics that you asserted at the top. The acceleration vector you describe does not match the force vector sum on the solar system of all the mass everywhere.  So your story is a blatant contradiction with F=ma.

That drifting outwards set the spiral shape of the arms in the galaxy.

This is just an assertion. It doesn't follow from anything you've said. In fact, what you said is that the spiral shape sets the outward drift, not the other way around.  You assumed the spiral shape in order to make your calculations of where the star must go to stay within it.

I hope that by know you understand why the arm is moving at our location at 460Km/s while the orbital velocity of the Sun is only 220Km/s.

I understood that several posts back when I told you the value the first time.  It also necessitates a ΔR rate of about 100 km/s to move at that speed and stay in the arm, yet no such outward motion has been measured.  100km/s would be an impossible thing to miss.  But this, being a trivial falsification of your view, is something that you will simply ignore as you have done all the other times I've pointed it out.

Once you understand that key information I will answer other questions.

I understood it all back when I first did the math for you in post 285.  You've only since been quoting the numbers back at me.  This entire post has been repetition of prior posts.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I have found the key evidence which proves my theory:
http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/204
If you look carefully, there are bridges between the arms:
The Sun is located at the Orange arm color.
There are several bridges there including the Perseus bridge.
So, this Proves my expectation for bridges between the arms.
If we could monitor it carefully, we should see that the aria between the arms (without the bridge is totaly empty from any sort of star!!!)
If we focus on the Mapping hydrogen, we get the following:
http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/202
"the hydrogen emission is more widespread than the visual data and shows regions of the galaxy that at visual frequencies are obscured by dust, as well as bridges or spurs that connect spiral arms.."
So, do you agree that there are bridges between the arms?
It is also stated:
"the hydrogen data shows more detailed structure than the visual data, including many "holes" or bubbles in the hydrogen emission"
So, do you agree that between the arms there are many "holes" or bubbles without even a single star?
This is how real theory works -
You set an expectation - and you prove it by real evidence!!!
Therefore do you agree that this article by itself proves that my theory is correct by 100%?

Motion with a nonzero net ΔR is not orbital, but yes, I agree with the calculation.

Thanks
I fully agree with you as it comes to that specific ΔR.
The Sun doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy.
Therefore, there is no gravity bonding between the Sun and the center of the galaxy (or the orbital sphere if you wish).
However, the main gravity bonding exists between the Sun and the local nearby stars.
They hold each other by gravity.
So, the arm is there due to the gravity bonding between the stars in the arm.
I will explain later on how the gravity works in the arm.
However, it is important to understand that in any real orbital cycle ΔR is nonzero by definition.
ΔR can be few Pico mm per cycle or few Km per cycle, but it is always there!!!
This is the highlight of my theory!
I think that our scientists have missed that key issue.
Please, you have to accept this idea as is!!!
My whole theory is based on this element and all the other elements including VHP.
We can't argue again and again and... on each element.
Please!!!
So, the sun orbits mainly due to the impact of the gravity force in the local aria. At each orbital cycle  (not around the center of the galaxy - but around the VHP1, it increases it's orbital radius)
If you insist to argue again about those key elements at each discussion, than we clearly wasting our time.
So, please let me know if you are willing to accept them all (Just during the introduction of the theory)
However, after the full introduction of the whole theory - you are more than welcome to argue on all of those elements.
Let me give you an example -
Let's assume that I have to teach you Hebrew or Arabic.
We normally write those languages from right to left.
However, if you insist that we must write it from left to right, how can you open yourself for those kinds of different languages?
In the same token, I ask you to accept the rules of my theory.
At the end, you can decide if you like it or not.
Agree?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The real Impact of VHP

Dear Halc
I know that you don't like the idea of VHP.
However, I think that the VHP is the most important element in the spiral galaxy and it fully meets Newton law.
Our scientists claim that the Sun is bobbling up and down due to the gravity force of the galactic disc.
So, they believe that the Sun has to cross the galactic disc while it bobbles up and down.
However, they ignore the key issue that the sun doesn't go up down, but it has also some inclination with regards to the galactic disc.
That by itself proves that the sun doesn't orbit/bobbling around the galactic disc.
I also couldn't find any bobbling activity under Newton law.
So, there is no gravity force due to galactic disc and the Sun doesn't bobble around the galactic disc while it orbits around the galactic center.
Therefore, this bobbling idea is just a bobbling idea in a science fiction book.
If we could monitor the Sun for few thousand years we would verify that the Sun is not going to cross the galactic disc (Never & ever). We should see that it orbits around some virtual point as it orbits around the galactic center.
This virtual point is called VHP1.
I have already explained the source of this virtual point as follow:
The Sun had been formed is a gas cloud at the center of the galaxy near the SMBH.
The matter in that gas cloud had to orbit around the center in some sort of tornado.
This orbital motion crystallizes the matter into star/planets/moons system.
So, the center of the gas cloud is the basic location of the VHP1.
Hence, as the Sun emerges from the gas cloud it already orbits around its VHP1.
This VHP1 has great impact on gravity force.
In order to understand that let me offer the following example about centrifugal:
https://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-1_cosmological/physics/b7.htm
"If the rope in Fig 94 has the length of the seconds pendulum and the body travels around the hand 10 times per second, then the rope is subject to 400 times that load which it carries when the body simply hangs. "
"The centrifugal field, generated under these conditions is therefore 400 times as strong as the gravitational field. People have succeeded in generating such fields in excess of 100 000 times the gravitational field (Ultra-centrifuge) "
So, the centrifugal can increase the gravitational field by even 100 000 times.
In the same to token, the VHP1 can increase significantly the impact of the Sun mass by gravitational field .
The outcome is, that when we set the gravitational calculation, we have to know the real value/impact of the Sun mass at VHP1.
Based on the radius between the Sun to the VHP1 and the orbital velocity we can extract/estimate the Sun mass gravitational field at the VHP1 location.
So, the orbital motion of the Sun around the VHP1, can increase dramatically the impact of the Sun mass.
Hence, the nearby aria is not gravitational effected by the direct mass of the Sun. it is effected by the Sun mass gravitational field at the VHP1.
That could potentially increase the effected sun mass by 1000 times or even 100,000 times.
This is also correct to any star in the galaxy.
So, when we look at our nearby aria we only see about 512 stars per 100LY.
Let's assume that each star has the same Sun mass.
Our scientists might claim that based on this density and the mass per each star , there is not enough gravity force in order to hold them together - and they are fully correct.
However, due to the orbital motion of each star around its unique VHP1, the effected mass of each star at its unique VHP1 could be 1,000 Sun mass (We must verify this number).
So, now we are dealing with 512 stars per 100LY, while the effected mass of each star is 1,000 Sun mass
I'm quite sure that based on this data, our scientists will confirm that now there is enough gravity force that is needed to hold them together.
So, the orbital motion of a star around its VHP1 significantly increases the impact of its mass. (like gyroscope)
This also explains why there is no need for dark matter in the galaxy. (If 512 Stars set a gravity force of 512,000 stars - there is no need for dark matter.)
Hence, that small orbital motion increases the gravity force of the whole galaxy by 1000 times (Or even more)
Therefore - VHP1 is a key element in spiral galaxy as we get so high gravity force with so less of mass.
Is it clear?

[Halc]

I will be very slow in replies for about a week.  Just too busy.

I have found the key evidence which proves my theory:

No evidence proves any theory.  Nothing can be proven by inductive evidence, which constitutes almost all empirical measurements.  Some theories just hold up well to falsification tests.

http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/204
If you look carefully, there are bridges between the arms:

A triumph of cherry picking.  You found something that labels bridges, even if it is a map of gas instead of stars.
I'd like to see the map without the arms drawn onto it, and without the greyed areas.

If we could monitor it carefully, we should see that the aria between the arms (without the bridge is totaly empty from any sort of star!!!)
If we focus on the Mapping hydrogen, we get the following:
http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/202
"the hydrogen emission is more widespread than the visual data and shows regions of the galaxy that at visual frequencies are obscured by dust, as well as bridges or spurs that connect spiral arms.."

That page has a visible image (the stars) and the gas image (orange) and when superimposed, it shows that the stars tend to be most dense between the gas arms.  So the gas is more of a foam structure with bridges connecting it all, and it avoids the stars which blow the gas away via solar wind.  At least, that's what the text says.
The middle orange image shows a lot more connective structure than the Milky Way image which has the disadvantage of not having a good face-on vantage point.

It is also stated:
"the hydrogen data shows more detailed structure than the visual data, including many "holes" or bubbles in the hydrogen emission"
So, do you agree that between the arms there are many "holes" or bubbles without even a single star?

On the contrary, the text says that it is the stars that clear these bubbles in the gas via their solar wind:

gas may expand away from the star formation regions, driven by enormous stellar winds. This local movement may explain the bubbles so obvious in most hydrogen maps of other galaxies.

This is how real theory works -
You set an expectation - and you prove it by real evidence!!!

The evidence you quote talks about star formation in the gas clouds, contradicting your assertion that all stars form near the SMBH and drift outward from there.

Therefore do you agree that this article by itself proves that my theory is correct by 100%?

Do you have any idea how proof works?  Do you know what the word means?

My alternate theory predicts among other things that there are stars.  I look up and see stars.  Thus my theory must be 100% correct and yours is wrong.  This seems to be the logic you're using, and yours is weaker since you predicted star bridges, not gas bridges.

The Sun doesn't orbit around the center of the galaxy.
Therefore, there is no gravity bonding between the Sun and the center of the galaxy (or the orbital sphere if you wish).

1) The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, and 2) the statement is a denial of the Newtonian physics which you say you don't deny.  Newton says that all mass attracts all other mass, a bond which cannot be broken.  Maybe you mean something else by 'gravitational bonding', but your proposed motion is definitely in conflict with Newton's laws.  Just asserting otherwise makes you look the fool.  If the motion of an object is accelerating outward and forward, the forces required for such acceleration need to be accounted for, and you have nothing to account for it.
Even the mainstream science views ran into this problem.  The acceleration vector was noted and it didn't match the one predicted by a computation of the net force on us from all the known mass in the galaxy.  They knew something was wrong.  The vector at least pointed the right way, but the magnitude was wrong.  Yours doesn't even point the right way.

However, the main gravity bonding exists between the Sun and the local nearby stars.
They hold each other by gravity.

You assert this without showing it.  The local nearby stars are on all sides and pretty much cancel each other out.  Our overall motion seems little affected by them so long as that holds.

However, it is important to understand that in any real orbital cycle ΔR is nonzero by definition.

Not by Newton/Kepler's definitions.  A nonzero ΔR in a real orbital cycle is a denial of their laws. You said you don't deny them, so I will hold you to it.  Perhaps your problem is that you don't understand them.

ΔR can be few Pico mm per cycle or few Km per cycle, but it is always there!!!
This is the highlight of my theory!
Please, you have to accept this idea as is!!!

I tried that, but you didn't move on. You reasserted Newton's laws, so I no longer have to accept a blatant contradiction with them.

My whole theory is based on this element and all the other elements including VHP.

Both contradict Newton's laws.  If you're going to hold to those laws, then your theory is contradicted and wrong.  If you deny those laws, then you need to find replacements for them, which was why I was always complaining about the theory never coming out.  I was looking for those replacements, without which no predictions can be made.

We can't argue again and again and... on each element.
Please!!!

Yes, it seems you will argue forever despite having your idea trivially falsified.  Besides contradicting Newton's laws, it has our motion needing to be about 100 km/s away from the center of the galaxy, and no such motion has been measured.  That is a direct empirical falsification of your assertions, and you just ignore it.

If you insist to argue again about those key elements at each discussion, than we clearly wasting our time.

Just now you're figuring that out?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc

Thanks again for all your answers.
I do appreciate your great effort!

On the contrary, the text says that it is the stars that clear these bubbles in the gas via their solar wind:

I disagree. You have to read it all and carefully.
The Text says clearly:
"As explained in the section on Velocity, it is possible to measure the velocity of both atomic hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide and in theory this can be used to construct a map of the Milky Way assuming that the velocity of the gas is largely determined by the rotation of the galaxy. This scheme has run into difficulty for several reasons, one of which is that gas moves for other reasons than galactic rotation. For example, gas may expand away from the star formation regions, driven by enormous stellar winds. This local movement may explain the bubbles so obvious in most hydrogen maps of other galaxies."
So, it is highlight clearly that: " it is possible to measure the velocity of both atomic hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide and in theory this can be used to construct a map of the Milky Way assuming that the velocity of the gas is largely determined by the rotation of the galaxy.
Based on that verification they see clearly holes and bubbles in the map. As those holes and bubbles are not expected,
At this point they have to stop and try to understand the great impact of those Bubbles.
But as usual, our scientists don't let the evidence to confuse them.
So, they try to explain the source of the holes and bubbles.
They say "May". It might be "May" or "May not".
So it is just a speculation
"gas may expand away from the star formation regions,"
I can't understand how they can base so important question on speculation.
However, even if the gas expands as they say.
Why do we see the bubbles?
How could it be that this gas expansion could set the holes and bubbles?
On the contrary, if the gas expands – it must expend everywhere. So, we shouldn't see any bubble. Therefore, the idea that the gas expands can't give an answer for the bubbles and holes that we see..
So, why they claim:"This local movement may explain the bubbles"?
Why? How the expended gas could set any sort of bubble or hole?

[Halc]

So, they believe that the Sun has to cross the galactic disc while it bobbles up and down.
However, they ignore the key issue that the sun doesn't go up down, but it has also some inclination with regards to the galactic disc.

What do you consider to be 'inclination'?  The word is usually used to describe the tilt of the axis of rotation relative to the plane in which it orbits.  So the Earth has an inclination of 23° but that has nothing to do with its motion through the solar system.  Similarly the solar system has an inclination of 63° relative to the galactic plane.  So the scientists are not in any sort of denial about our inclination.  The value is pretty trivial to measure.

I also couldn't find any bobbling activity under Newton law.

You don't understand the implications of the law then.  Work out the force on an object from a planar distribution of material.  It can be derived from Newton's gravitational formula.  The force vector is a function of the thickness/density-curve of the material.

So, there is no gravity force due to galactic disc and the Sun doesn't bobble around the galactic disc while it orbits around the galactic center.

Your lack of mathematic skills does not constitute evidence against what the mathematics implies..

The Sun had been formed is a gas cloud at the center of the galaxy near the SMBH.
The matter in that gas cloud had to orbit around the center in some sort of tornado.
This orbital motion crystallizes the matter into star/planets/moons system.
So, the center of the gas cloud is the basic location of the VHP1.

That makes the star its own VHP.  That's not a virtual point.  It is a real mass.  The star isn't going to orbit anything, given that description.

Hence, as the Sun emerges from the gas cloud it already orbits around its VHP1.

How can the sun orbit itself?

You've basically described an ideal cloud that collapses into a unary solar system like ours. The star is the mass around which everything else orbits, because everything else has mass that is dwarfed by the primary.

This VHP1 has great impact on gravity force.

If a virtual point (something virtual, with no mass of its own) has any impact on gravity at all, then it doesn't conform to Newton's laws, which describe no such thing.  His law is F=GMm/R², and the M of a VHP is zero, so zero force, and zero impact.

In order to understand that let me offer the following example about centrifugal:
https://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-1_cosmological/physics/b7.htm

You're getting your science from a religious site?

"If the rope in Fig 94 has the length of the seconds pendulum and the body travels around the hand 10 times per second, then the rope is subject to 400 times that load which it carries when the body simply hangs. "
"The centrifugal field, generated under these conditions is therefore 400 times as strong as the gravitational field. People have succeeded in generating such fields in excess of 100 000 times the gravitational field (Ultra-centrifuge) "
So, the centrifugal can increase the gravitational field by even 100 000 times.

Yes, this is exactly how one might create artificial gravity in a space station or ship, except the article mistakenly misrepresents the effect as a 'field'.  A centrifugal field exists only in a rotating reference frame, which is not what is being depicted.  They're using EM force instead of gravity to apply acceleration to mass.  EM force can take only so much.  It takes an incredibly strong material to achieve 100,000 Gs.  A gas cloud is not that material.

In the same to token, the VHP1 can increase significantly the impact of the Sun mass by gravitational field .

How so?  Via what force?  Yes, If I tie two rocks together with a cable, I can get them to orbit each other via EM force at a much higher rate than what gravity would produce.  The cable is needed to transfer the force between the objects.  A VHP has no place to attach a cable or anchor any other force.  Not even gravity since it has no mass.

The outcome is, that when we set the gravitational calculation, we have to know the real value/impact of the Sun mass at VHP1.

If it is going to have any effect on the sun, then you need to instead calculate the real value/impact of the VHP1 on the sun, not the other way around.  Of course under Newton's 3rd law, the two forces are equal and opposite.

Based on the radius between the Sun to the VHP1 and the orbital velocity we can extract/estimate the Sun mass gravitational field at the VHP1 location.

So you claim, but no way to extract this has ever been provided, so it's fiction until then.

So, the orbital motion of the Sun around the VHP1, can increase dramatically the impact of the Sun mass.

Nothing in the article you quoted had anything's mass being increased by its motion.  This happens under relativity, but we're not exactly getting into that here.

Let's assume that each star has the same Sun mass.
Our scientists might claim that based on this density and the mass per each star , there is not enough gravity force in order to hold them together - and they are fully correct.
However, due to the orbital motion of each star around its unique VHP1, the effected mass of each star at its unique VHP1 could be 1,000 Sun mass (We must verify this number).

This is a complete misrepresentation of the article you quoted.  A spinning object has no more mass than the same object stationary (relativity aside).  A centrifuge exerts no more force on objects nearby when it is spinning compared to when it is stopped.  You seem to assert otherwise here.  You also assert that stars orbit a virtual point, which defies all known physics.  If there is orbital motion, it is because there is real mass to orbit, not a virtual nothing.

So, the orbital motion of a star around its VHP1 significantly increases the impact of its mass. (like gyroscope)

A gyroscope attracts nothing when spinning, nor does its weight or mass change.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How can the sun orbit itself?

You've basically described an ideal cloud that collapses into a unary solar system like ours. The star is the mass around which everything else orbits, because everything else has mass that is dwarfed by the primary.

No
We need to understand how the Sun had been formed in a gas cloud.
You believe that the Sun had been formed as the matter collapses to the center of the gas cloud.
I claim that this is an incorrect scenario.
So how it really works?

Let's start from the excretion disc around the SMBH.
In the excretion disc there is a plasma at a temp of 10^9 c.
This plasma includes a new quarks, Atoms and molecular which had been formed by the Ultra high SMBH gravity force and the ultra velocity ( at about 0.3 speed of light)
As all of this new matter drifts outwards from the excretion disc it gets to the magnetic field around the SMBH.
The Ultra high power of that magnetic field Push that mater upwards (or downwards) with regards to that disc (at almost 0.8 speed of light).
At some point, the Atom/Molecular falls back to the galactic disc (but outwards the SMBH magnetic fields).
As the new born molecular gets to the galactic disc, it starts to orbit around the SMBH. At that point it had also decreased its temp to lower lever (I assume to 10^6 c).
However, the orbital momentum around the SMBH, push the new born molecular to gather in a hot gas clouds.
Each gas cloud set a very strong gravity force with the nearby SMBH.  The gravity force had been set
between the center of the SMBH to the center of that hot gas cloud (Let's call this center - VHP1)
However, that SMBH great gravity force, also force the matter in the gas cloud to orbit around the center of the cloud (VHP1) at a very fast speed.
We can compare it to a tornado storm in the gas cloud, while the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) is connected by gravity to the SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
"Definitions: A tornado is "a violently rotating column of air.."
So, this violently rotating column/cloud push the matter away from the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) to the edge of the gas could.
By doing so, there is high pressure in the matter as it gets to the edge of the cloud. This high pressure, High temp (10^6) and high orbital velocity set the crystallization process of the Sun.
In the first phase, we might find many small hot objects that orbit around VHP1.
However, over time those objects merge with each other and set the Sun and all the other planets and moons,
So, the sun had been formed from the matter which had been pushed away from the center (VHP1). Therefore, its temp at day one is 10^6 c. (Any planet and moon, has the same temp and the same matter as the Sun in its first day.)
Therefore, the Sun (and all its planets & moons) had been crystallized while it orbits around the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) and not IN the center of the gas cloud.
This is very important.
Therefore, when the Sun had been emerged from the gas cloud, it was already orbiting around the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) while this center orbits around the SMBH.
However, at this stage, there is no matter at the center of the gas cloud (VHP1), while the SMBH still holds that VHP1 by gravity.
So, the SMBH holds the center of the gas cloud (VHP1) by gravity while all the matter in the gas cloud had been drifted/pushed outwards and set the Sun.
This activity force the sun to orbit around a virtual host point - VHP1 (that was the center of the gas cloud - but currently without any matter) , while that VHP1 orbits around the SMBH.
Is it clear?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What I said was that the star must be at the center of gravity of the gas that comprises it.  Thus an isolated gas cloud (need not be symmetrical) that collapses entirely into a star must put that star exactly at the center of gravity of the original gas cloud.

Please be aware that we discuss about a gas cloud near the SMBH. So, you can't get any conclusion from a gas cloud which is not directly affected by a SMBH.
I say that a gas cloud near a SMBH doesn't set the star forming activity at the center of the gas cloud.
Few questions:
Why are you so sure that a new star must be formed at the center of the gas cloud that comprises it while this gas cloud is located near the SMBH and affected by its high magnetic power?
Can you please prove it by real evidence?
Do we have a solid verification from any gas cloud which is located near the SMBH?
Please let me know if you agree with the following evidences:
1. The Plasma in the accretion disc orbits at 0.3 speed of light, while its temp is 10^9c. Yes or no?
2. There are clear evidences that the matter from the accretion disc drifts outwards. So far our scientists didn't find evidence for any sort of matter (Star, Planet, Moon or even Atom) which had been eaten by the SMBH. Yes or No?
3. There is a very strong magnetic field around the SMBH. Yes or no?
4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?
5. The molecular falls back to the galactic disc. Yes or no?
6. With regards to S2 - based on our observation,
https://pages.uoregon.edu/imamura/323/lecture-2/sgrAbig.jpg
A. We see clearly that S2 doesn't move exactly at the expected orbital cycle. Yes or No?
B. At 1992.23 the shift is about 0.2 Light days, while at 1998.36 the shift is 0.3 Light day. Yes or no?
C. If S2 is orbiting around a VHP1 with a radius of 0.3 Light day (while this VHP1 orbits around the SMBH), do you agree that this verification is exactly what we should see. Yes or no?

 

 

[Halc]

What I said was that the star must be at the center of gravity of the gas that comprises it.  Thus an isolated gas cloud (need not be symmetrical) that collapses entirely into a star must put that star exactly at the center of gravity of the original gas cloud.

Please be aware that we discuss about a gas cloud near the SMBH. So, you can't get any conclusion from a gas cloud which is not directly affected by a SMBH.

What I said doesn't change if there are external forces moving the gas particles around.  Center of mass is computed by state at a given moment, so if you move some of the particles, the center of mass moves correspondingly.  If you gather all the mass of the material into one object like a star, then the center of mass of that material will be at the center of that star, and not elsewhere.  The presence of the SMBH (besides preventing that formation) does not change that.

I say that a gas cloud near a SMBH doesn't set the star forming activity at the center of the gas cloud.

I carefull asked what you mean by those words, and as usual you ignored it.  So I don't know what you mean by 'set the star forming activity'.  Perhaps a star might start to form to one side with most of the gas still off to the other side, but if it eventually gathers that remaining gas, the star will be exactly at the center of mass of all that material, and if it doesn't gather in all that gas, then it isn't comprised of all the material of which we're taking the center of mass.

Why are you so sure that a new star must be formed at the center of the gas cloud that comprises it while this gas cloud is located near the SMBH and affected by its high magnetic power?

External forces are irrelevant.  I am sure of my statement because of the way one computes center of mass.  This is a simple geometric property and not even a law of physics.  How does one find the center of mass of an object?  How does on find the center of mass of an object affected by high magnetic powers of a nearby SMBH?  The answer is the same for both since the SMBH and magnetic powers are not part of the calculation.

BTW, magnetic fields are a form of friction and slow things down, not speed things up.  An SMBH with a strong magnetic field will tend to align the motion of orbiting material to cross as few abstract lines of the field.  This forms a torus shaped cloud in some instances, although this has not been observed in our own galaxy.  Thus:

The Ultra high power of that magnetic field Push that mater upwards (or downwards) with regards to that disc

Magnetic forces tend to gather material into a disk or a torus if the field is very strong.  The field resists motion in the direction you indicate.

Can you please prove it by real evidence?

Any computation of the center of mass of the material comprising an object would show it.  I cannot help it if your education didn't include teaching you how to do that.  So I can prove it to the average 7th grader, but I cannot prove it to you.

1. The Plasma in the accretion disc orbits at 0.3 speed of light, while its temp is 10^9c. Yes or no?

It varies of course, but I don't know the figures myself.  You don't usually call it an accretion disk.  So I'll say yes since I have no reason to contest it.

2. There are clear evidences that the matter from the accretion disc drifts outwards.

Its very name suggests otherwise.  They wouldn't call it that if matter drifted outward.  There is no clear evidence of this at all.

So far our scientists didn't find evidence for any sort of matter (Star, Planet, Moon or even Atom) which had been eaten by the SMBH. Yes or No?

No.  All visual measurements of any SMBH are due to the matter being 'eaten' by it.  If it doesn't pull in matter, it is entirely invisible.  Ours is particularly starved for material, so it consumes matter at an unusually low rate, and thus emits far less radiation than a typical one.

3. There is a very strong magnetic field around the SMBH. Yes or no?

It has one, yes.  It is not particularly strong.  Cygnus A is a nice example of a SMBH with a strong magnetic field.

4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?

No.  Nothing like that comes from the accretion disc.  No such jet has ever been observed.

5. The molecular falls back to the galactic disc. Yes or no?

Material moving away from the galaxy will return to the galaxy if below escape velocity.   The disk has little to do with this, other than to provide most of the mass that determines the escape velocity of the galaxy at a given point.

6. With regards to S2 - based on our observation,
https://pages.uoregon.edu/imamura/323/lecture-2/sgrAbig.jpg
A. We see clearly that S2 doesn't move exactly at the expected orbital cycle. Yes or No?

There is no plot of expectation vs reality there, so it is not clearly depicted, and thus No.  Since we don't know the distribution of matter near its path, there is no clear expectation of exactly where it will go.

B. At 1992.23 the shift is about 0.2 Light days, while at 1998.36 the shift is 0.3 Light day. Yes or no?

Don't know what shift is.  You mean the length of the error bars?

C. If S2 is orbiting around a VHP1 with a radius of 0.3 Light day (while this VHP1 orbits around the SMBH), do you agree that this verification is exactly what we should see. Yes or no?

No.  What one would see is a regular deviation apparent in a Fourier transform of the position data.  That analysis has been done (you did not link to such an analysis) and it has conclusively shows that S2 does not orbit a secondary mass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?

No.  Nothing like that comes from the accretion disc.  No such jet has ever been observed.

https://phys.org/news/2012-05-ghostly-gamma-ray-blast-milky-center.html
Yes, there are clear evidences!
"New evidence of ghostly gamma-ray beams suggests that the Milky Way's central black hole was much more active in the past."
"Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the supermassive black hole."
Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required.
"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets," he said."
Our scientists have totally got lost.
They don't have even a clue about the meaning of that jet.
The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated to be at the range of 3 suns mass.
How can 3 sun mass eject 10,000 sun mass?
The answer is simple -
All of 10,000 suns mass had been ejected from the excretion disc which has only 3 sun mass at any given time.
However - Over time, that 3 Sun mass set that 10,000 sun mass in the jet stream.
Let's assume that the time which is needed to set this jet stream is T.
So, if there are 400 billion stars in the galaxy, than the excretion disc can create them all in the following time frame:
t = (400,000,000 / 10,000) T = 40,000T
So simple!
In the same token - The only power which could boost that jet is the magnetic power.
The image shows how strong is that ultra high magnetic power!!!
Our scientists claim that the image of the "the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees" and therefore, "this may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the suppermassive black hole" and I fully agree with that.
So, this jet by itself proves the great functionality of the excretion disc and the magnetic power.

B. At 1992.23 the shift is about 0.2 Light days, while at 1998.36 the shift is 0.3 Light day. Yes or no?

Don't know what shift is.  You mean the length of the error bars?

Yes
You call it error bar.
I call it "shift".
So, how can you justify that "error bar"?

Since we don't know the distribution of matter near its path, there is no clear expectation of exactly where it will go.

If you "don't know the distribution of matter near its path" how can you claim that this is the ultimate source for the "error bar"?

That analysis has been done (you did not link to such an analysis) and it has conclusively shows that S2 does not orbit a secondary mass.

What kind of analysis had been set to prove that S2 doesn't orbit a secondary mass?
In any case - As I have stated - there is no real mass at VHP1. It is a virtual point of mass.
So, I don't expect to see any real mass there. The analysis is fully correct.
However, VHP1 is the only explanation for that shift ("error bar" if you wish).
So, VHP1 is there because it must be there!
That VHP1 increases the total effective gravity of the galaxy and eliminate the need for the science fiction idea which is called - "Dark matter".
VHP1 is key element in the activity of spiral galaxy.

No.  All visual measurements of any SMBH are due to the matter being 'eaten' by it.  If it doesn't pull in matter, it is entirely invisible.  Ours is particularly starved for material, so it consumes matter at an unusually low rate, and thus emits far less radiation than a typical one.

This is a fatal error.
You want to believe that it eats matter, but you have no prove for that.
Therefore, you claim that this process is invisible.
No. I disagree.
If the SMBH eats a star it shouldn't be invisible. Actually, some time ago our scientists were expecting for fireworks as one of the S stars gets closer to the SMBH, but the star had survive.
So, the SMBH will never ever eat even one atom from the galaxy, as all the matter in the 400 Billion stars had been created by the SMBH!
As I have stated - mothers do not eat their children.
It's time for you to open your mind and understand the real activity in our galaxy!

I say that a gas cloud near a SMBH doesn't set the star forming activity at the center of the gas cloud.

I carefully asked what you mean by those words, and as usual you ignored it.  So I don't know what you mean by 'set the star forming activity'.

It means - the crystallization process of the molecular in the gas cloud.

Why are you so sure that a new star must be formed at the center of the gas cloud that comprises it while this gas cloud is located near the SMBH and affected by its high magnetic power?

External forces are irrelevant.  I am sure of my statement because of the way one computes center of mass.  This is a simple geometric property and not even a law of physics.  How does one find the center of mass of an object?  How does one find the center of mass of an object affected by high magnetic powers of a nearby SMBH?  The answer is the same for both since the SMBH and magnetic powers are not part of the calculation.

Sorry - I totally disagree with your following statement: "External forces are irrelevant."
The SMBH has a great impact on the nearby gas cloud! Its ultra high gravity force sets the crystallization process at the gas cloud.
I agree that at the first stage the SMBH sets the gravity bonding with the Gas cloud center of mass.
However, after the bonding, as the matter in the gas orbit around the center of the gas cloud, the SMBH will hold that center by gravity as long as needed.
For example -
If during the crystallization process, there will be a ring of matter/objects which orbits around the center at a radius of R (while the center is totally empty), than I assume that you agree that the SMBH will continue to hold the center (Let's call this center VHP1).
From this moment there is no meaning how that ring will look like.
I claim that even if all the matter in the ring will crystallized to one star, the SMBH will continue to hold this VHP1 while the star orbits around that point with a radius R.
By that activity, the SMBH had increased the gravity force impact of that star by several hundreds or thousands.
So, our sun could set a gravity force which is equivalent to 1000 Sun mass just due to the orbital movement around VHP1. That is correct to S2 and any star in the galaxy.
Hence, 1,000 stars can set a gravity force which is equivalent to one million stars.
Therefore, when we try to monitor the gravity impact of the galaxy, we see that it is much more than the total mass in all the stars in the galaxy.
So, that simple VHP1 eliminates the need for "dark matter"

[Halc]

4. We clearly see a molecular jet stream which is blowing upwards/or downwards from the accretion disc at 0.8 speed of light. Yes or no?

No.  Nothing like that comes from the accretion disc.  No such jet has ever been observed.

https://phys.org/news/2012-05-ghostly-gamma-ray-blast-milky-center.html
Yes, there are clear evidences!

Those jets do not come from the accretion disk.  They come from the poles.  That jet always exists, but is very weak for Sgr-A, as this article confirms.  It is very apparent in other black holes (little ones, other galaxies), but it doesn't come from the disk and it is mostly gamma rays, not hydrogen.

Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required.
"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets," he said."
Our scientists have totally got lost.
They don't have even a clue about the meaning of that jet.
The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated to be at the range of 3 suns mass.
How can 3 sun mass eject 10,000 sun mass?

He suggests a mass that large falling in, not coming out.  The current disk has very little mass because so little material is falling in.

However - Over time, that 3 Sun mass set that 10,000 sun mass in the jet stream.

The jet stream is a gamma ray beam which doesn't even have proper mass.  It is light.

In the same token - The only power which could boost that jet is the magnetic power.

Magnetic fields have no impact on light.  It carries no charge.

You call it error bar.
I call it "shift".
So, how can you justify that "error bar"?

It means the measurement has only so much accuracy.  You'll notice that in other plots, the technology has improved and the more recent measurements are more accurate.

If you "don't know the distribution of matter near its path" how can you claim that this is the ultimate source for the "error bar"?

It is an error in measurement, not a statement of probability of where they think it will be before they measure it.

What one would see is a regular deviation apparent in a Fourier transform of the position data. That analysis has been done (you did not link to such an analysis) and it has conclusively shows that S2 does not orbit a secondary mass.

What kind of analysis had been set to prove that S2 doesn't orbit a secondary mass?

The one you edited out of my post, and I put back.

In any case - As I have stated - there is no real mass at VHP1. It is a virtual point of mass.

If it is virtual, it has no gravitational effect.  It takes real mass to do that.

So I don't know what you mean by 'set the star forming activity'.

It means - the crystallization process of the molecular in the gas cloud.

OK, that works.  The process can begin off-center, but it cannot finish there.


Have to go.  Didn't reply to the whole thing.

[Halc]

Sorry - I totally disagree with your following statement: "External forces are irrelevant.".  The SMBH has a great impact on the nearby gas cloud

Forces (external or otherwise) are irrelevant to a center-of-mass calculation.  Of course gravity has impact on the gas.  It just doesn't come into play with a CoM calculation.  A collection of material cannot be somewhere where it isn't, force or no force.

Its ultra high gravity force sets the crystallization process at the gas cloud.

That it might do, but more a moderate force.  A high force tends to separate gas and more solid objects.  If you were to orbit close enough to a small black hole in a space suit, you would be pulled to pieces, not compressed.  Crystallization utilizes the gravity of the gas itself, possibly with an external shock wave to seed the process.

I agree that at the first stage the SMBH sets the gravity bonding with the Gas cloud center of mass.
However, after the bonding, as the matter in the gas orbit around the center of the gas cloud, the SMBH will hold that center by gravity as long as needed.

Gravity exerts no force on a center of mass.  It exerts it on mass.  Newton's formula has nothing about gravity acting on an abstract point.  Such points have no mass and are thus unaffected by any gravitational field.

For example -
If during the crystallization process, there will be a ring of matter/objects which orbits around the center at a radius of R (while the center is totally empty),

Are you suggesting a ring shaped cloud?  That might happen if there is a gravity source pulling the cloud into that shape, but then the ring isn't exactly empty.  Saturn's rings are a shape like that, but the center has Saturn sitting in it.  Clouds don't form rings by themselves.  They tend to be formless blobs, but if the gravity of the cloud acts on itself, it would be most dense somewhere in the middle, not the edges.  Real clouds tend to be long drawn out stretches of matter which might form several stars along its length.

than I assume that you agree that the SMBH will continue to hold the center (Let's call this center VHP1).

The SMBH will not hold the center since there is no mass to hold there.  It will attract the nearest part the most and the furthest part the least, and thus pull such a ring apart.  The inner part will orbit faster than the stuff further away, so the ring ends up getting completely dispersed as the various atoms/objects assume different orbits.

I claim that even if all the matter in the ring will crystallized to one star, the SMBH will continue to hold this VHP1 while the star orbits around that point with a radius R.

Your claim has gravity acting on non-mass, which violates Newton's laws.  Either you rewrite those laws, or your claim is contradictory.

By that activity, the SMBH had increased the gravity force impact of that star by several hundreds or thousands.

This is also a contradiction.  Newton's laws say no such thing.  The force exerted by gravity is clearly spelled out in the simple formula.

So, our sun could set a gravity force which is equivalent to 1000 Sun mass just due to the orbital movement around VHP1. That is correct to S2 and any star in the galaxy.

I've already commented on this nonsense above, and you just ignored my comments.  I see little point in repeating it

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Magnetic fields have no impact on light.  It carries no charge.

It is stated:
"The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole, which may not be aligned with the Milky Way."

Those jets do not come from the accretion disk.  They come from the poles.  That jet always exists, but is very weak for Sgr-A, as this article confirms.  It is very apparent in other black holes (little ones, other galaxies), but it doesn't come from the disk and it is mostly gamma rays, not hydrogen.

It is also stated:
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets."
They specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."
Therefore, this is a clear indication for the Plasma/hot matter which had been squirted out from the accretion disc.
It is also stated clearly that the "magnetic field kept it tightly focused" and "The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole"
So, why do you insist again and again to show that any issue that I highlight is incorrect by definition even if there is clear evidence?
What do you gain with that?

[Halc]

Magnetic fields have no impact on light.  It carries no charge.

It is stated:
"The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole, which may not be aligned with the Milky Way."

That makes sense.  The material they're speaking of here is not light (which would not move as slow as 0.8c anyway).  A magnetic field will resist motion across field lines, so motion towards and away from the disk is slowed by friction.  But at the poles, the motion crosses no field lines, so the effect is acceleration much like a linear solenoid.
So the disk (the rotating material outside the black hole) generates the field, but the jets emanate from the material at the poles, not the disk.

It is also stated:
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets."

I actually don't know what they're talking about here.  Gamma rays are light and light emitted a million years ago doesn't hang around to be seen much later.  How can any kind of light form a bubble that persists for an extended time like that?  Ditto for the gamma ray jet that should not be detectable after the jets shut down.  Sure, the galaxy currently has active jets, just not as intense as it seemingly was a million years ago.  I have no idea how they could detect that.  It must be some side effect of the energy that persists and is detectable so much time later.

They specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

Yes, I agree with that.  Some of the matter falling in finds its way to the poles and is squirted out in these plasma jets, powered by the energy of the greater amount of material falling in.  Supernovas do the same thing, where a gravitational collapse of a star powers a fraction of the material to escape at incredible energies.  They have the same characteristic jets at the poles.

Therefore, this is a clear indication for the Plasma/hot matter which had been squirted out from the accretion disc.

From the part at the poles, which isn't really the disk part, but nevertheless powered by the magnetic field of the rotating disk.  I'm not disagreeing with your comment, just clarifying that no material jets from the sides where the disk is.  It comes from the material at the axis, not the ring of material on the sides.  The inner-most material under the highest gravity might cause some of the material of the disk to find its way around the black hole to the poles where the magnetic field is strong enough to counter the gravity pulling it in.

It is also stated clearly that the "magnetic field kept it tightly focused" and "The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole"
So, why do you insist again and again to show that any issue that I highlight is incorrect by definition even if there is clear evidence?

I don't disagree with the above quote.  Your comments seem to imply that the jets come directly from the disk, and are not just powered by the disk.  If you mean the latter, then we're not in disagreement.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

They specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

Yes, I agree with that.

So, do you agree that the hot matter/plasma is blowing outwards from the accretion disc?
Therefore, do you agree that the accretion disc acts as an excretion disc?
Do you agree that this hot matter is boosted upwards & downwards due to the ultra high magnetic field around the SMBH?
If so, why do you still claim:

Your comments seem to imply that the jets come directly from the disk, and are not just powered by the disk.

Don't you see that the hot matter is coming outwards directly from the excretion disc while it powers up/down by the magnetic field and set the jet?
So, the magnetic power boosts that hot matter/plasma/molecular (which had been ejected from the excretion disc) upwards and downwards at almost 0.8 speed of light.
This matter is the source for all the stars in our galaxy.

[Halc]

They specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

Yes, I agree with that.

So, do you agree that the hot matter/plasma is blowing outwards from the accretion disc?

I was not clear about the part with which I am in agreement. I agree with their comment that the jet is plasma squirted out from the galactic center. It says from the center, not from the disk, which is not at the center. I don't agree with you chnaging that to imply that the jet emanates directly from the disk.
The material does come in through the disk, and if it gets 'squirted' to the poles as some of it seems to, then the field there is capable of ejecting it like that.

Therefore, do you agree that the accretion disc acts as an excretion disc?

What you have described as an excretion disk is a disc created by material excreted from the central object itself.  An accretion disk is material from outside that was drawn in via the gravity of the central mass.  The difference is matter coming from above or below.  No, your excretion description defies gravitational field theory, which is not Newton's work, but rather Einstein's.
Yes, I agree that some of the accreted material is ejected at the poles (not at the disk), rather than completing its fall into the gravity well that drew it in.  There are countless websites that depict the typical disk and jet such as https://i.pinimg.com/originals/25/f0/60/25f060ef8e26c1012d3e137b97a5226d.jpg
These pictures seem to all be artists conceptions and not actual photographs.  The beam of light is quite visible if it gets pointed straight at Earth as it does in pulsars.

Do you agree that this hot matter is boosted upwards & downwards due to the ultra high magnetic field around the SMBH?

Yes.  Most of that beam is light, but some of it is matter.  The magnetic field only allows it in those two directions.  Any other direction involves crossing the magnetic field lines which reduces motion.

If so, why do you still claim:

Your comments seem to imply that the jets come directly from the disk, and are not just powered by the disk.

Because that is a different claim than the one above with which I have far less objection.

Don't you see that the hot matter is coming outwards directly from the excretion disc while it powers up/down by the magnetic field and set the jet?

From the poles.  Not from elsewhere.

This matter is the source for all the stars in our galaxy.

Well, It's the matter falling in, a small percentage of which is ejected.  There is a net loss, not a net gain.  This is quite apparent in our own galaxy which currently lacks significant material falling in, and thus the jets are all but gone.  Dump new stuff in, and the jets will start up again.
The excretion model would presumably be a more continuous process and not rely on material being dumped in from the outside.  It needs to rewrite relativity, and thus there is no black hole at all, but just some sort of matter/energy generation point, which is completely different physics.  It isn't wrong physics, but it certainly contradicts accepted principles.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well, It's the matter falling in, a small percentage of which is ejected.  There is a net loss, not a net gain.  This is quite apparent in our own galaxy which currently lacks significant material falling in, and thus the jets are all but gone.  Dump new stuff in, and the jets will start up again.

O.K
Few questions:
In the article it is stated:" The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
"The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

1. Do you agree that Plasma exsists only at the accertion disc (at 10^9 c)?
2. Do you agree that there is a very strong magnetic field around the accertion disc?
3. Do you agree that this strong magnetic field can boost the Plasma/hot matter (which had been ejected from the accertion disc) upwards or downwards by almost 0.8 speed of light?
4. So, do you agree that we have clear evidences that hot matter/plasma are excerted outwards from the accertion disc?
5. Do you agree that so far we didn't find any evidence for any sort of matter which eccerts from outside directly into the eccertion disc?
6. If we only see matter that get's out from the accertion disc, while we have never ever see any sort of matter that gets in, why do you still believe that the eccertion disc get's its matter from outside?
7. What kind of evidence is needed to convince you that the accertion disc is actually axcertion disc?  That it never ever eats any matter form outside? That the plasma/hot matter is constantly generated by the SMBH gravity force and than ejected outwards from the accertion disc?