[Dave Lev (OP)]

Not according to the law of conservation of energy, it doesn't. Do you think you are some kind of higher authority than the laws of physics themselves?
You are right in the sense that gravity is converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy.

OK

Let's verify the idea of conservation of energy:
Ek = 1/2 m V^2 
V^2 = G M /r
Ek = 1/2 G M m /r
Ep = M G r
Et = Ek + Ep = 1/2 G M m / r + M G r
If r = 2R
Et = 1/2 G M m / 2R + M G 2 R
In other words by increasing the radius by twice, we decrease the Ek by twice and increase the Ep by twice.
Therefore, as Ek is not equal to Ep any change in the radius also set a change in Et.
If the total rotation energy is changing due to radius change - where do you get the idea of law of conservation of energy in gravity force???
Do you see any error in this simple example?

In any case, let me remind you that we have started this discussion as I have stated that there is no energy transformation in Gravity.
I have used the moon example -
It had totally lost its rotate ability as it is fully locked with the Earth.
Even so, any object that has a wish to orbit around the moon must fully obey to the same Ep, Ek and Et as I have used.
So, with the ability to rotate/spin or without it, the outcome due to gravity force is the same.
Therefore, there is no need for transformation of energy from the rotate/spin energy into the orbital rotation energy and vice versa.
This idea is a fiction and I have just proved it!
How those scientists that set laws of physics can't get that simple outcome?

[Kryptid]

Therefore, as Ek is not equal to Ep any change in the radius also set a change in Et.

Right, but the radius doesn't change spontaneously. Energy either has to be added to the orbit or lost from it in order for such a radius change to occur. So it still obeys conservation of energy.

If the total rotation energy is changing due to radius change - where do you get the idea of law of conservation of energy in gravity force???

If you are referring to the rotational energy of the black hole being reduced by raising the particles into a higher orbit, there is no challenge to the law of conservation of energy there. An increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy, and that required amount of energy comes from the black hole's spin, which is reduced in the process. The total energy remains the same both before and after the orbit change.

Do you see any error in this simple example?

Yes, your error is in thinking that orbits can change spontaneously without any input of energy from an outside source or loss of energy to an outside source.

In any case, let me remind you that we have started this discussion as I have stated that there is no energy transformation in Gravity.

Gravity changes potential energy into kinetic energy, so this argument is objectively wrong. All you have to do is drop something to test that idea.

I have used the moon example -
It had totally lost its rotate ability as it is fully locked with the Earth.

The Moon is still rotating, it just takes the same amount of time to complete one rotation as it takes to complete one orbit around the Earth.

Even so, any object that has a wish to orbit around the moon must fully obey to the same Ep, Ek and Et as I have used.
So, with the ability to rotate/spin or without it, the outcome due to gravity force is the same.

Technically, it isn't, since the value of "m" changes very slightly over time when a satellite's rotation slows down. The value of "m" also changes very slightly when its orbit changes, since orbital energy also has an associated mass due to E=mc². In most cases, that extra mass is negligible when compared to the total mass. According to this site, the rotational kinetic energy of the Earth is 2.138 x 10²⁹: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/rotational-kinetic-energy/

Dividing that by the speed of light squared (299,792,458² = 89,875,517,873,681,764) yields an equivalent mass of 2.3788 x 10¹² kilograms. That sounds like a lot, but the Earth's total mass is 5.97237 x 10²⁴ kilograms. So the mass of the Earth's rotational kinetic energy accounts for a mere 0.0000000000419% of the Earth's total mass. You'd never notice it was gone if the Earth stopped spinning.

Therefore, there is no need for transformation of energy from the rotate/spin energy into the orbital rotation energy and vice versa.

Non-sequitur.

This idea is a fiction and I have just proved it!

All you have proven is that you don't know how gravity, orbits and energy works.

How those scientists that set laws of physics can't get that simple outcome?

First of all, scientists don't "set" the laws of physics: they discover them. Secondly, they didn't get your outcome because they actually know what they are doing instead of making fallacious, misinformed assumptions.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Right, but the radius doesn't change spontaneously. Energy either has to be added to the orbit or lost from it in order for such a radius change to occur.

Thanks
So, you agree that as the object is changing its orbital radius, "Energy either has to be added to the orbit or lost from it"
That is a key element. It proves that there is no conservation of energy in the total rotation energy
So, how can you claim that:

So it still obeys conservation of energy.

If you mean that there is a conservation of energy after adding new energy - that is fully clear.
But again - There is no conservation of energy in the total rotation energy!

An increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy,

So, we fully agree that once you change the radius you need to add energy or decrease energy.

The total energy remains the same both before and after the orbit change.

If you add or decrease an energy to or from the total energy - than how can you still think that the total energy remains the same?
Sorry - this is a fatal Mistake!

and that required amount of energy comes from the black hole's spin

So, you think that the required amount of energy comes from the black hole's spin.
Do you agree that based on this idea, in order to decrease an energy of the total rotation energy, the black hole's spin rotation should be increased?
In any case, you claim for a direct linkage between the Total rotation energy of the orbital object around the main body, to the spin of the main body.
However, I have also proved that the Moon has no ability to transfer its spin energy.

The Moon is still rotating, it just takes the same amount of time to complete one rotation as it takes to complete one orbit around the Earth.

That is correct.
The moon is still rotating and it just takes the same amount of time to complete one rotation as it takes to complete one orbit around the Earth.
HOWEVER - that spin velocity is FIXED!!!
If you set there one billion objects that orbits clockwise or the other side - do you agree that all of them will fully obey to Newton law whithout any ability for the moon to transfer even one bit of its spin energy (especially not to the one of the orbital direction). So the moon's spin would continue to rotate at the same fixed velocity while all the Billion objects will fully obey to Newton law and orbital velocity whithout getting any extra energy from the Moon's spin.
Hence, there is virtually no ability for any real energy transformation from the Moon spin to the requested orbital objects.
Therefore, If the moon doesn't transfer any energy from its spin velocity to any orbital object (while it's Kinetic energy + potential energy will fully obey to Newton law) - could it be that even the SMBH won't need to transfer any energy from its spin velocity?
Please - So far you couldn't offer any real formula (By Newton or Einstein) that directly links the spin energy/velocity of the main body to the orbital energy of the orbital object.
If you have any idea about a linkage between the two, would you kindly show in that formula why it doesn't work for the Moon?


I have a question for you:
Why are you so sure that "an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy"?
Actually the Kinetic Energy is decreasing as we increase the Radius:
Ek = 1/2 m V^2 = 1/2 G M m /r
In the same token, the gravity force is also decreasing (even more dramatically):
F = G M m / r^2
So, less Kinetic energy and less Gravity force is needed to maintain the orbital momentum as the radius is increasing.
Therefore, an increase in the orbital radius requires less and less input of energy.
On the other hand, we can claim that as we increase the radius, we also increase the potential energy.
Ep = m G r
However, it seems to me that there is a rang limit for that potential energy.
If the objects are quite close to each other, than the gravity force is strong enough and therefore - the Potential energy has a great impact.
In this case we can clearly claim that:
"an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy"
For example - at the surface of the Earth - we clearly know that " an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy"
However, if the object is too far away from the Earth or even from the sun, the gravity force is decreasing dramatically and I wonder what is the real meaning of the potential energy while the gravity force is almost gone to zero.
For Example - The Oort cloud around the solar system.
I'm not fully sure about it, but it seems to me that for any orbital system up to a certain radius - we can claim for sure that:  "an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy.
However, from that certain radius - "an increase in the orbital radius does not require any input of energy".
We know that in the past that matter in the oort cloud was part of the mass that have set the Solar system.
Now, we know for sure that the Oort cloud is drifting outwards constantly.
So, without any need for external energy - those objects at Oort cloud are increasing their radius over time.
Hence, the main questions are?
1. Is it a Normal activity at gravity that too far away orbital objects are drifting outwards over time?
2. Could it be that the gravity force is decreasing over time for orbital objects that are located too far away?
3. How can we find that radius range that converts the " an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy" to  "an increase in the orbital radius over time requires no net input of energy - It is a normal activity of Gravity force"?
4. Could it be that this range is set by finding the radius when The Kinetic energy is equal to potential energy?
In other words - if Kinetic energy is greater than Potential energy -  an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy, however if the potential energy is greater that the kinetic energy than " an increase in the orbital radius over time requires no net input of energy"?

[Kryptid]

Thanks
So, you agree that as the object is changing its orbital radius, "Energy either has to be added to the orbit or lost from it"
That is a key element. It proves that there is no conservation of energy in the total rotation energy

You have it backwards. An object won't change its orbital radius unless it is gaining energy from an outside source or losing it to an outside source. A spacecraft won't spontaneously increase its orbital radius from the Earth, for example. If the astronauts want to increase the orbital radius, they will have to add energy by firing the engines.

If you mean that there is a conservation of energy after adding new energy - that is fully clear.
But again - There is no conservation of energy in the total rotation energy!

Since energy is neither created nor destroyed, yes there is.

So, we fully agree that once you change the radius you need to add energy or decrease energy.

Again, you have it backwards. Adding energy from an outside source will increase the orbital radius. You can't say, "I want the  orbital radius to increase, so the energy required to do that pops up out of nowhere". The radius won't increase unless the object in orbit is supplied with energy from another source that already existed. Look at my example with the spaceship.

If you add or decrease an energy to or from the total energy - than how can you still think that the total energy remains the same?

Because the energy lost by the black hole's spin is now present in the particles it created. The total energy (black hole + particles) is the same.

Do you agree that based on this idea, in order to decrease an energy of the total rotation energy, the black hole's spin rotation should be increased?

That is the exact opposite of what would happen. Decreasing the black hole's rotational kinetic energy causes the spin to be slowed down.

In any case, you claim for a direct linkage between the Total rotation energy of the orbital object around the main body, to the spin of the main body.

That depends on what you're talking about. When you say "total rotation energy" are you talking about the total orbital energy or what?

If you set there one billion objects that orbits clockwise or the other side - do you agree that all of them will fully obey to Newton law whithout any ability for the moon to transfer even one bit of its spin energy (especially not to the one of the orbital direction). So the moon's spin would continue to rotate at the same fixed velocity while all the Billion objects will fully obey to Newton law and orbital velocity whithout getting any extra energy from the Moon's spin.

You would actually expect the opposite to occur. Instead of the objects in orbit being given energy by the Moon's spin, you'd expect them to transfer energy to the Moon and spin it up instead. That's because they would be orbiting the Moon faster than the Moon rotates. If the opposite was true and the Moon was spinning faster than the orbit, then you would expect the Moon the slow down while raising the orbital radius of the object

Hence, there is virtually no ability for any real energy transformation from the Moon spin to the requested orbital objects.
Therefore, If the moon doesn't transfer any energy from its spin velocity to any orbital object (while it's Kinetic energy + potential energy will fully obey to Newton law) - could it be that even the SMBH won't need to transfer any energy from its spin velocity?

This is a completely ridiculous conclusion. You are basically arguing, "Objects that don't spin can't transfer spin energy, therefore spinning objects don't transfer spin energy either." That's like arguing that a car without gas in its tank can't run therefore a car with gas in its tank can't run either. Spin is the very thing that makes these two scenarios different.

Please - So far you couldn't offer any real formula (By Newton or Einstein) that directly links the spin energy/velocity of the main body to the orbital energy of the orbital object.

If you are talking about finding the rate of energy transfer over time, you would need to use multiple equations to figure that out. They are listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Theory

It's a much simpler matter if you are asking how much spin energy is required to increase the orbital radius by a given amount. First you would calculate the increase in total orbital energy when going from the old radius to the new radius (using the orbital kinetic and potential energy equations). Then you subtract that resulting energy difference from the total rotational kinetic energy of the primary body. You can then use the rotational kinetic energy equation to calculate how much the primary body's spin should have slowed down.

I have a question for you:
Why are you so sure that "an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy"?

Because the law of conservation of energy demands it. Energy doesn't pop up out of nowhere.

Therefore, an increase in the orbital radius requires less and less input of energy.

Yes, but that input of energy is still non-zero at all distances. That's the important part.

However, it seems to me that there is a rang limit for that potential energy.

Yes, potential energy reaches its maximum (and finite) value at infinity.

However, if the object is too far away from the Earth or even from the sun, the gravity force is decreasing dramatically and I wonder what is the real meaning of the potential energy while the gravity force is almost gone to zero.

It still has the same meaning. Just because the gravity is weak doesn't mean it isn't there. The math still works.

I'm not fully sure about it, but it seems to me that for any orbital system up to a certain radius - we can claim for sure that:  "an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy.

It works for all radii because gravity has infinite range.

Now, we know for sure that the Oort cloud is drifting outwards constantly.
So, without any need for external energy - those objects at Oort cloud are increasing their radius over time.

Given that the Oort cloud is theoretical at this point, I'm going to have to ask you to cite an authoritative source that supports your assertion that the cloud as a whole is drifting away from the Sun (if it exists).

1. Is it a Normal activity at gravity that too far away orbital objects are drifting outwards over time?

No, although it is easier for such objects to be dislodged from their orbits by even tiny amounts of energy contributed from other sources. Impacts from asteroids or gravitational tugging from other objects in the vicinity are possible sources of such energy.

2. Could it be that the gravity force is decreasing over time for orbital objects that are located too far away?

Due to the gravitational constant, no.

3. How can we find that radius range that converts the " an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy" to  "an increase in the orbital radius over time requires no net input of energy - It is a normal activity of Gravity force"?

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

4. Could it be that this range is set by finding the radius when The Kinetic energy is equal to potential energy?
In other words - if Kinetic energy is greater than Potential energy -  an increase in the orbital radius requires a net input of energy, however if the potential energy is greater that the kinetic energy than " an increase in the orbital radius over time requires no net input of energy"?

Nope.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

potential energy reaches its maximum (and finite) value at infinity.

Sorry, I totally disagree with that.
As we increase the radius, we decrease the gravity force by r^2.
However the potential energy is increasing only by r.
So, the decreasing in the gravity force is dramatically higher than the increasing of the potential energy.
If the radius is long enough, the gravity force should go almost to Zero.
At the infinity, the gravity force is virtually ZERO. 
So, what is the meaning of Potential energy at a distance with zero (or virtually zero) gravity force?
Therefore, there is a meaning for potential energy ONLY as long as the gravity force is high enough.
You have set the calculation of the potential energy of the Moon/Earth while the radius is 1000 LY and the outcome was quite impressive Potential energy.
However, at that distance - the gravity force between the Moon/Earth should go down to virtually zero.
So, do you really think that the moon will be affected by the earth gravity (which is virtually zero)?
Therefore, that high potential energy at a distance of 1000 LY is useless in the Erath moon system - as the gravity force goes to almost zero at relatively high radius.
Why our scientists do not add the potential energy when they look at the spiral arm?
If you think that the Earth/moon potential energy has still an impact at long distance of 1000Ly, than why the potential energy of nearby stars (at a range of less than 100 Ly - there are 512 stars at that range) have no impact on the Sun orbital movement?
Please be aware that due to their massive mass and fairly shorter distances - the gravity forces between the nearby stars in the spiral arms are not so neglected.
So, the potential energy should have an impact on nearby stars at the spiral arms.
Why our scientists totally ignore the potential energy when it comes to fairly short distances at the spiral arms (only 100Ly- when gravity force is still quite high) while we claim/hope that potential energy still has an impact even at the infinity (when gravity force is virtually zero)?
Why do you think the moon orbits around the earth instead of the Sun.
We have already found the gravity force of the Sun/moom is more than twice than the Moon/Earth.
Therefore, the only answer for that is:  Gravity Works Locally!

An object won't change its orbital radius unless it is gaining energy from an outside source or losing it to an outside source. A spacecraft won't spontaneously increase its orbital radius from the Earth, for example. If the astronauts want to increase the orbital radius, they will have to add energy by firing the engines.

That's not fully correct
You miss the impact of time.
A spacecraft changes its orbital radius from the Earth over time (without operate the internal rockets).
Normally it falls in. So it reduces its orbital radius over time.
However, that is correct as long as the spacecraft is close enough to the Earth.
Try to set a spacecraft at a significantly further from the Earth - and you would surly find that it should increase its orbital radius over time.
I wonder why our scientists do not add the "over time" impact to the gravity formula.
You would probably claim that it isn't due to due to tidal or spin energy.
I think differently.

[Kryptid]

Sorry, I totally disagree with that.

Then you disagree with the basic mathematics that are universally-accepted enough to appear in school textbooks.

Sorry, I totally disagree with that.
As we increase the radius, we decrease the gravity force by r^2.
However the potential energy is increasing only by r.
So, the decreasing in the gravity force is dramatically higher than the increasing of the potential energy.
If the radius is long enough, the gravity force should go almost to Zero.
At the infinity, the gravity force is virtually ZERO.
So, what is the meaning of Potential energy at a distance with zero (or virtually zero) gravity force?

It has the same meaning as it does at any other distance, only a different value. Remember, infinity is conceptual. It can only be approached, never actually reached.

Therefore, there is a meaning for potential energy ONLY as long as the gravity force is high enough.

Define "high enough".

You have set the calculation of the potential energy of the Moon/Earth while the radius is 1000 LY and the outcome was quite impressive Potential energy.
However, at that distance - the gravity force between the Moon/Earth should go down to virtually zero.
So, do you really think that the moon will be affected by the earth gravity (which is virtually zero)?

Virtually zero is not literally zero, so yes, it will be affected.

Therefore, that high potential energy at a distance of 1000 LY is useless in the Erath moon system - as the gravity force goes to almost zero at relatively high radius.

There is nothing "useless" about it. The problem is that 1,000 light-years is well outside of Earth's Hill sphere, so the Moon could not actually orbit at that distance because there are so many other stars and planets around that would be pulling on the Moon much more strongly than the Earth. If the Universe was empty of all matter except for the Earth and Moon, however, such an orbit could indeed exist because there would no longer be such a Hill sphere.

Why our scientists do not add the potential energy when they look at the spiral arm?

Who said they don't?

If you think that the Earth/moon potential energy has still an impact at long distance of 1000Ly, than why the potential energy of nearby stars (at a range of less than 100 Ly - there are 512 stars at that range) have no impact on the Sun orbital movement?

They do. The Sun is far from sitting still, you know.

Please be aware that due to their massive mass and fairly shorter distances - the gravity forces between the nearby stars in the spiral arms are not so neglected.
So, the potential energy should have an impact on nearby stars at the spiral arms.

Nobody ever said that they should be neglected.

Why our scientists totally ignore the potential energy when it comes to fairly short distances at the spiral arms (only 100Ly- when gravity force is still quite high) while we claim/hope that potential energy still has an impact even at the infinity (when gravity force is virtually zero)?

You're going to have to find some kind of authoritative source supporting your claim that they ignore the potential energy of stars in the spiral arm.

Why do you think the moon orbits around the earth instead of the Sun.

Because the strength of Earth's gravity as felt by the Moon is higher than what it feels from the Sun. That's because distance matters as much as mass does. If the Sun was heavy enough, the Moon would feel it pulling on it more strongly than the Earth does. In that case, the Moon would indeed orbit the Sun.

We have already found the gravity force of the Sun/moom is more than twice than the Moon/Earth.

No, no we have not. What I calculated was gravitational potential energy, not gravitational force. Those are two very different quantities. The force goes down with distance whereas the potential energy goes up with distance.

Therefore, the only answer for that is:  Gravity Works Locally!

No, it doesn't. There is no known limit to gravity's range. The inverse-square law tells you that much. Do you know what the inverse-square law is?

A spacecraft changes its orbital radius from the Earth over time (without operate the internal rockets).
Normally it falls in. So it reduces its orbital radius over time.

That is due to atmospheric drag. If the Earth didn't have an atmosphere, that wouldn't happen.

However, that is correct as long as the spacecraft is close enough to the Earth.

Because of atmospheric drag, right.

Try to set a spacecraft at a significantly further from the Earth - and you would surly find that it should increase its orbital radius over time.

This would absolutely not happen, because it would violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of the spacecraft cannot spontaneously increase. This is something I have repeated ad nauseum. The only way to increase the gravitational potential energy is via energy input. I can't help but wonder what part of "energy cannot be created or destroyed" you don't understand. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, so why are you struggling with it?

I wonder why our scientists do not add the "over time" impact to the gravity formula.

You can if you want to, but no amount of waiting will change the total orbital energy until energy is lost or gained by the object in orbit. Again, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You can't win an argument against nature.

You would probably claim that it isn't due to due to tidal or spin energy.

I will argue no such thing, since there is nothing stopping you from adding a time component to the equation. It just won't tell you anything unless energy is being brought into or lost from the system.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid
Thanks again for your great support!

1. Potential energy/gravity force for nearby stars

If you think that the Earth/moon potential energy has still an impact at long distance of 1000Ly, than why the potential energy of nearby stars (at a range of less than 100 Ly - there are 512 stars at that range) have no impact on the Sun orbital movement?

They do. The Sun is far from sitting still, you know.

Would you kindly advice what our scientists really understand from that nearby Potential energies/gravity forces?
Let's verify the observations:
At a radius of 100Ly around the sun there are 512 Stars.
That volume represents 8 times the volume of 50Ly.
So, if we try to calculate the average stars density per radius volume of 50 Ly the outcome will be:
512 / 8 = 64 stars per 50Ly.
Surprisingly, At a radius of 50Ly around the sun there are exactly 64 stars?
That shows that the density of stars in the Orion arm is exactly 64 Stars per 50Ly (or 512 Stars per 100Ly)
This is not a random activity!!!
A density wave can't generate that kind of fixed density.
The whole idea of density wave is that in some arias there is higher density of stars while in other arias there are less density of stars.
This is not the case in the Orion arm and not in any other spiral arm.
I would love to know the real 50 Ly radius volume densities of stars per distance from the galactic center - in the arm.
Based on my theory, we should find that as we go closer to the galactic center the density is higher.
As we go further away from the galactic center - the density is lower.
However - at any spiral arm - at any distance from the galactic center, the density of stars is FIXED.

Outside the arm - the density MUST be ZERO!
However, the arm might have any kind of shape and there are bridges between the arms.
I can promise you that as we cross the edge of the arm - there will be ZERO stars there!!!
So, at the nearby aria around the sun - the density could be: or 64 per 50Ly radius or ZERO.

There is another issue which is a direct outcome of theory D.
As we go outwards from the galactic center the arm gets thinner and thinner.
If we go further enough from the galactic center - the stars starts to be disconnected from the arms at the galactic disc.
That sets the end point of the spiral arms.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how the spiral arm really works as they totally ignore the real impact of that density and why the arm is thinner and thinner as we move outwards.
If they would try to understand the real impact of the Potential energy/gravity force in short range - less than 500 or 1000Ly, they should get to the same conclusions which I have got.
If we could go back in time - let's say 100 M years ago - we would find that all the nearby stars are still there.
So, any star that is moving away from us today - should come back in the future.
While any star that is moving in our direction, should move away in the Future.
How is it possible?
The density wave doesn't give an answer for all of that.
However, the Potential energies and the gravity forces between nearby stars give a perfect solution.
They are all gravity bonded IN THE ARM itself!!!
So please - show me how our scientists translate that nearby potential energy/gravity force into real understanding about the structure of spiral arms.

2. Rotational energy conservation/transformation after the BBT
You claim that stars can't just decrease or increase their orbital radius without external energy.
If that is correct - than how the whole galaxies had been formed after the Big bang while there were no rotational energy at all?
At the early days - 380M years after the Big Bang we have only got matter.
No stars, No galaxies, No orbital objects no main body, no kinetic Energy No rotation energy - only matter everywhere.
So, if we take a cube of one billion LY - in that cube there was no Kinetic energy, no spin energy, no rotation energy - Nothing)
However, Today at the same volume cube there is so high rotational energy. It is everywhere. Try to take the same cube today and calculate the total rotation energy (of all the stars, galaxies) in that cube.
From Zero rotation energy in age of 380 M years we have got so high total rotation energy today.
So, how your idea of rotational energy conservation could be correct if in the early days there was no rotation energy at all???
Please - If you offer a random activity, than why the same idea for random gravity force/Energy that creates the whole stars, planets, moons, BH, SMBH, and even unlimited no of galaxies without any request for early rotational energy transformation/conservation in the Early days, can't work today even for just one pair of particle???
How can anyone believe that somehow in the early days of our universe the whole galaxies have been formed without any need for rotational energy transformation but today even for one pair of particle you insist for rotational energy transformation?
So please - would you kindly show how the whole orbital activities in the early galaxy had been formed out of nothing (no orbital activities after the matter creation - age of 380 MY after the Big bang), while we have to assume that the same rotational energy conservation should works also for those early days.

3. Moon/sun gravity force

Because the strength of Earth's gravity as felt by the Moon is higher than what it feels from the Sun. That's because distance matters as much as mass does. If the Sun was heavy enough, the Moon would feel it pulling on it more strongly than the Earth does. In that case, the Moon would indeed orbit the Sun.

So, you don't agree that the Sun/Moon gravity force is stronger than the earth/moon force?
https://www.universetoday.com/116158/why-doesnt-the-sun-steal-the-moon/
"If you’re up for some napkin calculations, you little mathlete, by using Newton’s law of gravity, you find that even with its greater distance, the Sun pulls on the Moon about twice as hard as the Earth does.
So why can’t the Moon escape the Earth?"
The answer is:
"So, yes, the Sun is totally trying to rip the Moon away from the Earth, but the Earth is super clingy.
The speed of the Moon around the Earth is about 1 km/s. At the Moon’s distance from the Earth, the escape velocity is about 1.2 km/s. The Moon simply isn’t moving fast enough to escape the Earth."
However, I have asked why the Moon had started to orbit around the Earth at its first day?
Our scientists claim:
https://www.space.com/29047-how-moon-formed-earth-collision-theory.html
"The formation of the moon has long remained a mystery, but new studies support the theory that the moon was formed from debris left from a collision between the newborn Earth and a Mars-size rock, with a veneer of meteorites coating both afterward."
I claim that this story is incorrect because:
a. Meteorites can't form new Moon. They only can set some sort of a ring, as we see around Saturn.
b. If one of the meteorite was as big as the moon, it had to follow the gravity force of the Sun at the moment of the impact (as at that moment the gravity force of the sun was stronger than the earth).


4. Could it be that the "Hill sphere" is the answer for why gravity works locally?

There is nothing "useless" about it. The problem is that 1,000 light-years is well outside of Earth's Hill sphere, so the Moon could not actually orbit at that distance because there are so many other stars and planets around that would be pulling on the Moon much more strongly than the Earth. If the Universe was empty of all matter except for the Earth and Moon, however, such an orbit could indeed exist because there would no longer be such a Hill sphere.

Wow
Thanks for that information about the Hill sphere:
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3015/how-large-is-the-earths-gravitational-sphere-of-influence-and-how-can-it-be-cal
"The Hill sphere (aka the Roche sphere) looks at things from the perspective of energy rather than force.
The Hill sphere asks a rather different question: Given a smaller body orbiting a larger body, can an even smaller body orbit the small body? "
Hence, as we monitor the rotational energy rather than gravity force we might find the answerfor why gravity works locally and why the moon orbits around the earth instead of orbiting directly around the Sun.

5. "Over time"

I wonder why our scientists do not add the "over time" impact to the gravity formula.
You can if you want to, but no amount of waiting will change the total orbital energy until energy is lost or gained by the object in orbit. Again, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You can't win an argument against nature.

Well, I think differently
Every orbit has a shape of spiral.
In the nature nothing comes back exactly to the same point (same orbital radius).
It might fall in or it might drift out.
Unfortunately, our scientists have missed that key element of "Over time".
I can promise you that by 100% all the stars in the spiral arms are drifting outwards over time.
After every cycle around the galactic center - the sun is drifting outwards.
If we could come back in one billion years from now we might find that our sun had been ejected from the arm and from the galactic disc.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Surprisingly, At a radius of 50Ly around the sun there are exactly 64 stars?

There are 133 stars visible to the naked eye within that radius, which is less than 10% of the stars in total.  Map of the 133 here: http://www.icc.dur.ac.uk/~tt/Lectures/Galaxies/LocalGroup/Back/50lys.html
It says there are an estimated 1800 stars in 1300 systems (so much for binary being prevalent).

Your problem is that you get your data from hand-selected google pages instead of where scientists get it: From looking at the stars.

Sorry if I was not clear enough.
I'm speaking about G stars
http://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),

[Kryptid]

Would you kindly advice what our scientists really understand from that nearby Potential energies/gravity forces?

That there are certain limitations placed on how the stars can move in the galaxy. Stars can’t randomly fly out of the galaxy without sling-shotting off of other stars (and thereby sending them deeper into the galaxy), for example.

Let's verify the observations:
At a radius of 100Ly around the sun there are 512 Stars.
That volume represents 8 times the volume of 50Ly.
So, if we try to calculate the average stars density per radius volume of 50 Ly the outcome will be:
512 / 8 = 64 stars per 50Ly.
Surprisingly, At a radius of 50Ly around the sun there are exactly 64 stars?
That shows that the density of stars in the Orion arm is exactly 64 Stars per 50Ly (or 512 Stars per 100Ly)
This is not a random activity!!!
A density wave can't generate that kind of fixed density.

That density isn't fixed. The stars are moving relative to each other. It’s also a very bad assumption to calculate the density of stars within 100 light-years of the Sun and extrapolate that to the density of all of the other stars in the spiral arm. What does that have to do with anything, anyway?

Let's verify the observations:
At a radius of 100Ly around the sun there are 512 Stars.
That volume represents 8 times the volume of 50Ly.
So, if we try to calculate the average stars density per radius volume of 50 Ly the outcome will be:
512 / 8 = 64 stars per 50Ly.
Surprisingly, At a radius of 50Ly around the sun there are exactly 64 stars?
That shows that the density of stars in the Orion arm is exactly 64 Stars per 50Ly (or 512 Stars per 100Ly)
This is not a random activity!!!
A density wave can't generate that kind of fixed density.
The whole idea of density wave is that in some arias there is higher density of stars while in other arias there are less density of stars.
This is not the case in the Orion arm and not in any other spiral arm.
I would love to know the real 50 Ly radius volume densities of stars per distance from the galactic center - in the arm.
Based on my theory, we should find that as we go closer to the galactic center the density is higher.
As we go further away from the galactic center - the density is lower.
However - at any spiral arm - at any distance from the galactic center, the density of stars is FIXED.

Outside the arm - the density MUST be ZERO!
However, the arm might have any kind of shape and there are bridges between the arms.
I can promise you that as we cross the edge of the arm - there will be ZERO stars there!!!
So, at the nearby aria around the sun - the density could be: or 64 per 50Ly radius or ZERO.

There is another issue which is a direct outcome of theory D.
As we go outwards from the galactic center the arm gets thinner and thinner.
If we go further enough from the galactic center - the stars starts to be disconnected from the arms at the galactic disc.
That sets the end point of the spiral arms.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how the spiral arm really works as they totally ignore the real impact of that density and why the arm is thinner and thinner as we move outwards.
If they would try to understand the real impact of the Potential energy/gravity force in short range - less than 500 or 1000Ly, they should get to the same conclusions which I have got.
If we could go back in time - let's say 100 M years ago - we would find that all the nearby stars are still there.
So, any star that is moving away from us today - should come back in the future.
While any star that is moving in our direction, should move away in the Future.
How is it possible?
The density wave doesn't give an answer for all of that.
However, the Potential energies and the gravity forces between nearby stars give a perfect solution.
They are all gravity bonded IN THE ARM itself!!!

We are getting away from the issue at hand. What does any of this have to do with whether gravity obeys conservation of energy or not?

So please - show me how our scientists translate that nearby potential energy/gravity force into real understanding about the structure of spiral arms.

We aren’t talking about the structure of the galaxy right now. We are still talking about the issue of the energy source of your model.

2. Rotational energy conservation/transformation after the BBT
You claim that stars can't just decrease or increase their orbital radius without external energy.

No, that is not what I claim. An increase in orbital radius requires input energy, whereas a decrease in orbital radius requires energy to be removed.

If that is correct - than how the whole galaxies had been formed after the Big bang while there were no rotational energy at all?

Energy can be lost in other ways, such as gas clouds contracting by radiating heat.

no kinetic Energy

This is absolutely wrong. Kinetic energy would have been present in every single moving particle in the Universe.

At the early days - 380M years after the Big Bang we have only got matter.
No stars, No galaxies, No orbital objects no main body, no kinetic Energy No rotation energy - only matter everywhere.
So, if we take a cube of one billion LY - in that cube there was no Kinetic energy, no spin energy, no rotation energy - Nothing)
However, Today at the same volume cube there is so high rotational energy. It is everywhere. Try to take the same cube today and calculate the total rotation energy (of all the stars, galaxies) in that cube.
From Zero rotation energy in age of 380 M years we have got so high total rotation energy today.
So, how your idea of rotational energy conservation could be correct if in the early days there was no rotation energy at all???

The rotational axes of different galaxies are in random directions relative to each other, so there is no evidence that the Universe at large has any net angular momentum. So there is no evidence that the Universe has gained net angular momentum over time: the total should still be zero.

Please - If you offer a random activity

What is a "random activity"?

Please - If you offer a random activity, than why the same idea for random gravity force/Energy that creates the whole stars, planets, moons, BH, SMBH, and even unlimited no of galaxies without any request for early rotational energy transformation/conservation in the Early days, can't work today even for just one pair of particle???

It didn't work in the "early days" and doesn't work now. Gravity doesn’t create energy.

How can anyone believe that somehow in the early days of our universe the whole galaxies have been formed without any need for rotational energy transformation but today even for one pair of particle you insist for rotational energy transformation?

Galaxies were formed from gravitational collapse, which releases energy. No energy creation of any kind is necessary.

So please - would you kindly show how the whole orbital activities in the early galaxy had been formed out of nothing (no orbital activities after the matter creation - age of 380 MY after the Big bang), while we have to assume that the same rotational energy conservation should works also for those early days.

You are talking about opposite processes. Galaxy formation does not require any net energy input because the matter involved is entering a lower energy state. This is the opposite of increasing an orbital radius, which requires an input of energy.

So, you don't agree that the Sun/Moon gravity force is stronger than the earth/moon force?
https://www.universetoday.com/116158/why-doesnt-the-sun-steal-the-moon/
"If you’re up for some napkin calculations, you little mathlete, by using Newton’s law of gravity, you find that even with its greater distance, the Sun pulls on the Moon about twice as hard as the Earth does.

So it appears that I was wrong about that particular issue, but it is interesting to know that the Moon technically is already orbiting the Sun.

However, I have asked why the Moon had started to orbit around the Earth at its first day?
Our scientists claim:
https://www.space.com/29047-how-moon-formed-earth-collision-theory.html
"The formation of the moon has long remained a mystery, but new studies support the theory that the moon was formed from debris left from a collision between the newborn Earth and a Mars-size rock, with a veneer of meteorites coating both afterward."
I claim that this story is incorrect because:
a. Meteorites can't form new Moon. They only can set some sort of a ring, as we see around Saturn.
b. If one of the meteorite was as big as the moon, it had to follow the gravity force of the Sun at the moment of the impact (as at that moment the gravity force of the sun was stronger than the earth).

This is beginning to step away from the main issue again. How the Moon formed is not relevant.

Hence, as we monitor the rotational energy rather than gravity force we might find the answerfor why gravity works locally and why the moon orbits around the earth instead of orbiting directly around the Sun.

You already have the answer for why the Moon orbits the Earth in that link you posted...

Well, I think differently

The law of conservation of energy doesn’t care what you think.

Every orbit has a shape of spiral.
In the nature nothing comes back exactly to the same point (same orbital radius).
It might fall in or it might drift out.

The reason for that is that there are many different factors at play. Asteroid impacts, gravitational interactions with other objects, solar wind, mass loss of the Sun over time, drag from the thin gas in space, the release of gravitational radiation, etc. all have some impact on orbits. Those are sources of energy loss and energy gain.

Unfortunately, our scientists have missed that key element of "Over time".

No, they haven’t. They are well aware that orbits can change over time due to the factors I just mentioned.

I can promise you that by 100% all the stars in the spiral arms are drifting outwards over time.
After every cycle around the galactic center - the sun is drifting outwards.

That is actually quite possible, given that the stars are continually losing mass over time. That wouldn't represent a violation of energy conservation, however, as the mass lost by the stars would still be out there in the form of solar wind and radiation.

If we could come back in one billion years from now we might find that our sun had been ejected from the arm and from the galactic disc.

That’s probably far too soon, but it is technically possible due to a gravitational slingshot off of another star.

The fact of the matter is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Gravity is no exception to this rule: https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/08/since-gravity-is-unlimited-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

You may not accept the law of conservation of energy, but nature doesn't care what you accept.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's verify the observations:
At a radius of 100Ly around the sun there are 512 Stars.
That volume represents 8 times the volume of 50Ly.
So, if we try to calculate the average stars density per radius volume of 50 Ly the outcome will be:
512 / 8 = 64 stars per 50Ly.
Surprisingly, At a radius of 50Ly around the sun there are exactly 64 stars?
That shows that the density of stars in the Orion arm is exactly 64 Stars per 50Ly (or 512 Stars per 100Ly)
This is not a random activity!!!
A density wave can't generate that kind of fixed density.

That density isn't fixed. The stars are moving relative to each other. It’s also a very bad assumption to calculate the density of stars within 100 light-years of the Sun and extrapolate that to the density of all of the other stars in the spiral arm. What does that have to do with anything, anyway?

Dear Kryptid

I would like to remind you that the title of this discussion is:
"How gravity works in spiral galaxy?"
We will continue our discussion about the Energy.
However, the density of G stars in spiral arm and the thickness of the galactic disc are very important for our understanding - "How gravity works in spiral galaxy?".

So, do you agree that there is clear observation for 64 Stars per radius of 50 Ly in the radius of 100 Ly around the sun?
If we will discover that this is correct for any location in the 1000 Ly segment around the sun (as long as you are in the Orion arm), If we also discover that outside the arm the density drop to Zero - What can we learn from that?

There is another issue which is a direct outcome of theory D.
As we go outwards from the galactic center the arm gets thinner and thinner.
If we go further enough from the galactic center - the stars starts to be disconnected from the arms at the galactic disc.
That sets the end point of the spiral arms.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how the spiral arm really works as they totally ignore the real impact of that density and why the arm is thinner and thinner as we move outwards.

Actually our scientists have discovered that:
Close to the Ring (3KPC) - the thickness of the arms is 3000Ly
At our current location  (8KPC) - the thickness of the arms is 1000Ly
At the end of the spiral arms (12KPC?) - the thickness of the arms is less than 500Ly

So how the density wave theory can explain all of those observations?

[Kryptid]

We will continue our discussion about the Energy.

We are still focusing on energy. Jumping around to different topics at the same time is counterproductive. You even agreed with me that we are to focus on the energy issue until that is resolved:

I'm putting a hold on all of the other matters for the moment and focusing on conservation of energy because that is the crux of the problem right now. I'm not moving on until that issue is solved first.

Yes, fully agree.

So we'll talk about the other aspects of your model if and when the energy issue is properly dealt with.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear krptid

Our scientists have developed some ideas/assumptions about gravity and energy.
For example you have stated:

An object won't change its orbital radius unless it is gaining energy from an outside source or losing it to an outside source. A spacecraft won't spontaneously increase its orbital radius from the Earth, for example. If the astronauts want to increase the orbital radius, they will have to add energy by firing the engines.

Again, you have it backwards. Adding energy from an outside source will increase the orbital radius. You can't say, "I want the  orbital radius to increase, so the energy required to do that pops up out of nowhere". The radius won't increase unless the object in orbit is supplied with energy from another source that already existed. Look at my example with the spaceship.

However, spacecraft is not a star.
We need to verify the stars activity in the galaxy and see if those assumptions are correct.
The only way to verify that is by our observation on the galaxy.
The thickness of the spiral arms and the density of the stars at any section give us a perfect understanding.
So, if you look at our Milky Way spiral arms you would see immediately that stars can't migrate inwards.
Actually, the stars in the spiral arms MUST drift outwards.
We all see many stars that are ejected at ultra velocity from the galactic disc.
https://curiosity.com/topics/this-hypervelocity-star-was-ejected-from-the-milky-way-curiosity
"Every once in a while, the Milky Way ejects a star. The evicted star is typically ejected from the chaotic area at the center of the galaxy, where our Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH) lives. But at least one of them was ejected from the comparatively calm galactic disk, a discovery that has astronomers rethinking this whole star ejection phenomenon."
In order to explain this phenomenon our scientists claim that it is due to Binary star:
"When a star is kicked out of the galaxy, it's usually one star from a binary pair. Scientists think that as a binary pair get too close to the SMBH and its overwhelming gravity, the hole captures one of the stars. The other star is shot out into space in a "gravitational slingshot." The black hole has to be a supermassive one because only they have powerful enough gravity to accelerate these run-away stars to such high velocities."
The specifically claim: "the hole captures one of the stars"
So, please show me those stars that were captured by the SMBH?
If we see that stars are ejected outwards than we also must see stars that pushed inwards.
We see quite many of those Hypervelocity Star that were Ejected from the Milky Way.
Did we ever see one single Hypervelocity Star that was pushed inwards to the SMBH in the Milky Way?
The answer is very clear - No No and No.
Those Hypervelocity Star were not ejected due to the Binary affect.
They were ejected from the galaxy as they have moved to far away from the requested density in the arm/galaxy
Those 64 stars per 50 Ly is a living factor for our solar system in the galaxy.
Our sun is located near the edge of the Orion arm. If we will dare to move even 30 LY away from the edge of the arm, we will lose the gravity bonding of all our nearby stars.
At that moment we will be boosted outwards from the galaxy and will never come back again.
The galaxy doesn't take back any matter or stars from outside.
All the stars and matter that we see in the galaxy had been created by our mighty SMBH.
So, please - would you kindly answer the questions about the thickness and G stars density in the spiral arms?
How the "density wave theory" can still be valid under those observations?

[Kryptid]

Our scientists have developed some ideas/assumptions about gravity and energy.

Conservation of energy isn't an assumption. It's an observable fact.

However, spacecraft is not a star.

Gravity can't tell the difference. Mass is mass.

We need to verify the stars activity in the galaxy and see if those assumptions are correct.
The only way to verify that is by our observation on the galaxy.

Stars obey the laws of physics, including conservation of energy.

So, please show me those stars that were captured by the SMBH?

You know there are many stars observed to be in orbit around our super-massive black hole, don't you?

Did we ever see one single Hypervelocity Star that was pushed inwards to the SMBH in the Milky Way?

Of course not, because that isn't how it works. Gravitational sling-shotting speeds one body up at the expense of slowing another body down. If you knew how conservation of energy worked (which you have abundantly demonstrated that you don't), you would have known that. Both stars can't make each other go faster as that would violate conservation of energy. If one speeds up, that is because it has extracted energy from the other star via gravitational interactions, which makes the other one slow down. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Those Hypervelocity Star were not ejected due to the Binary affect.

You're in no position to make such a claim when you don't even know how gravitational slingshotting works.

They were ejected from the galaxy as they have moved to far away from the requested density in the arm/galaxy

You really don't know how gravity works. If a star is gravitationally-bound to other stars, it can't move too far away from those other stars in the first place unless the energy needed to move away from those stars is imparted to it somehow. If it happened spontaneously, that would violate conservation of energy.

Our sun is located near the edge of the Orion arm. If we will dare to move even 30 LY away from the edge of the arm, we will lose the gravity bonding of all our nearby stars.

That is as ridiculous as claiming that "If I dared to move even a hundred million miles off of the Earth, I would lose my gravitational bond with Earth". Can I spontaneously float away from the Earth? No, I can't. Gravity is holding me here. If I want to move a hundred million miles from Earth, I have to be given enough energy to move that far away. So a star can't spontaneously drift away from other stars either. It has to receive enough energy from some source in order to drift that required distance because it is moving against a force that is trying to pull it back. Moving against a force requires energy. Period.

At that moment we will be boosted outwards from the galaxy and will never come back again.

Boosted by some magical thing you made up, it seems.

All the stars and matter that we see in the galaxy had been created by our mighty SMBH.

No matter how many times you say this, the law of conservation of energy won't let it be true. You might hate that law, but that doesn't make it go away.

So, please - would you kindly answer the questions about the thickness and G stars density in the spiral arms?
How the "density wave theory" can still be valid under those observations?

Even if "density wave theory" was wrong (which I don't know enough about to make a judgment call on anyway), it wouldn't matter because your explanation is also wrong. Models that violate the laws of physics are automatically wrong. Your model is automatically wrong because it violates conservation of energy. Is gravitational energy a form of energy? Yes. Therefore, it must obey the law of conservation of energy.

What makes you think you can break the laws of physics?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Gravitational sling-shotting speeds one body up at the expense of slowing another body down. If you knew how conservation of energy worked (which you have abundantly demonstrated that you don't), you would have known that. Both stars can't make each other go faster as that would violate conservation of energy. If one speeds up, that is because it has extracted energy from the other star via gravitational interactions, which makes the other one slow down

So you claim that: "Both stars can't make each other go faster as that would violate conservation of energy."
We know that the average orbital velocity of the stars around the galaxy is about 200 Km/s
I have found a  runaway star at 1200Km/s:
https://www.space.com/28737-fastest-star-galaxy-strange-origin.html
The runaway star, US 708, is traveling at 745 miles per second (1200 km/s) — that's  26 million miles per hour (43 million km/h) —making it the fastest star in the Milky Way ever clocked by astronomers, according to the new research"
It is also stated:
"The monster black hole at the center of the Milky Way has the gravitational muscle to fling a star on a one-way-track out of the neighborhood, and many other hypervelocity stars are thought to originate from there. But US 708 didn't start its journey near the galactic center, the new research shows."
Based on your advice it must come from a binary star in the galactic disc (as it is far away from the SMBH).
However, you have stated that: : "Both stars can't make each other go faster as that would violate conservation of energy."
So, how can we convert the energy of 200Km/s to 1200Km/s?

Our scientists must find a real explanation for all the observations!!!
If we can't explain the observations by the theory that we believe - than this theory is not relevant.
Therefore, If we can't explain the G star's density and thickness - than we have to look for better theory.
Let's assume that 100,000 professors and scientists believe in the same assumption/theory.
Does it mean that this assumption is correct?
If you all believe in that assumption - than you have to explain the observation.
So, a theory can't be correct just because all of you believe in that theory.
There must be full correlation between any theory to all observations.
Theory D is the only valid theory that gives a perfect explanation for everything we see.
It meets all the observations by -100%.
Actually, there is a simple way to verify which theory is real.
You can tell me what is your expectation based on your theory/understanding, and I will tell you the expectation by theory D.
Let's start by the nearby G stars density.
I can tell you by 100% that at any 50LY radius in the nearby aria in the Orion arm - the density MUST be 64 G stars.
If you go out the arm - the density must drop to zero.
So, there are only two possibilities for star density - or 64 per 50Ly or Zero. Nothing in between (unless we are located exactly at the edge of the arm or the bridge).
Would you kindly advice what would be your expectation for the G star density around us (take radius of 2000 Ly?
If we will cross the Orion arm, what might be the star density?
Why don't we ask NASA to verify my expectation?
If we will discover that theory D is correct, do you agree to reconsider your objection against this theory?

Your model is automatically wrong because it violates conservation of energy. Is gravitational energy a form of energy? Yes. Therefore, it must obey the law of conservation of energy.

Gravity force is a FORCE!!!
Newton didn't call it Gravity energy
Gravity is not just an energy transformation.
A force can generate new energy.
Evey orbit of a star consume energy.
If I will give you a rope with a ball at the end, don't you need to generate new force/energy in order to keep it orbiting around you?
In the same token -  Every orbit of a star consumes Force and energy.
However, as the gravity force comes for free (Due to Newton , there is no need to fuel the gravity force or set any energy transformation), the energy due to this force also comes for free.
So, far you couldn't show any formula which links the gravity force into energy transformation.
In electromagnetic - energy transformation is must.
In gravity force - As Newton and Einstein didn't specify any request for gravity energy transformation - your assumption is totally incorrect.
Therefore, the statement that gravity force can't generate new energy is a severe violation of Newton law

[Kryptid]

So you claim that: "Both stars can't make each other go faster as that would violate conservation of energy."
We know that the average orbital velocity of the stars around the galaxy is about 200 Km/s
I have found a  runaway star at 1200Km/s:
https://www.space.com/28737-fastest-star-galaxy-strange-origin.html
The runaway star, US 708, is traveling at 745 miles per second (1200 km/s) — that's  26 million miles per hour (43 million km/h) —making it the fastest star in the Milky Way ever clocked by astronomers, according to the new research"
It is also stated:
"The monster black hole at the center of the Milky Way has the gravitational muscle to fling a star on a one-way-track out of the neighborhood, and many other hypervelocity stars are thought to originate from there. But US 708 didn't start its journey near the galactic center, the new research shows."
Based on your advice it must come from a binary star in the galactic disc (as it is far away from the SMBH).
However, you have stated that: : "Both stars can't make each other go faster as that would violate conservation of energy."
So, how can we convert the energy of 200Km/s to 1200Km/s?

The answer is in that very link:

The fastest-known star in the Milky Way is on a path out of the galaxy, and new research suggests it was a supernova that gave it the boot.

Did you even bother to read that before posting the link here? Not all fast-moving stars must have the same cause.

Theory D is the only valid theory that gives a perfect explanation for everything we see.
It meets all the observations by -100%.

No it doesn't, as It violates the law of conservation of energy. We observe that energy is conserved. Hypothesis D (I won't call it a theory, because it isn't) goes against that observation.

Actually, there is a simple way to verify which theory is real.
You can tell me what is your expectation based on your theory/understanding, and I will tell you the expectation by theory D.
Let's start by the nearby G stars density.
I can tell you by 100% that at any 50LY radius in the nearby aria in the Orion arm - the density MUST be 64 G stars.
If you go out the arm - the density must drop to zero.
So, there are only two possibilities for star density - or 64 per 50Ly or Zero. Nothing in between (unless we are located exactly at the edge of the arm or the bridge).
Would you kindly advice what would be your expectation for the G star density around us (take radius of 2000 Ly?
If we will cross the Orion arm, what might be the star density?
Why don't we ask NASA to verify my expectation?
If we will discover that theory D is correct, do you agree to reconsider your objection against this theory?

No, because Hypothesis D violates conservation of energy. It cannot be correct for that reason.

A force can generate new energy.

Not according to the law of conservation of energy.

Evey orbit of a star consume energy.

No, no it doesn't.

If I will give you a rope with a ball at the end, don't you need to generate new force/energy in order to keep it orbiting around you?

Only because the drag of the air is slowing it down. If I was floating in space, I would have no trouble keeping the ball going without adding any extra force or energy.

In the same token -  Every orbit of a star consumes Force and energy.

No it doesn't. You just don't understand how force works. Your false analogy just displayed that.

However, as the gravity force comes for free (Due to Newton , there is no need to fuel the gravity force or set any energy transformation), the energy due to this force also comes for free.

More proof that you don't understand how force relates to energy. Force is not energy. The law of conservation of energy won't allow force to create new energy. A table is under a constant force from gravity but no new energy is being generated by the force.

So, far you couldn't show any formula which links the gravity force into energy transformation.

I did give you such an equation. The gravitational potential energy equation shows exactly that: how much energy is released by allowing an object to fall into a gravitational field or how much energy is consumed moving an object up against a gravitational field.

In gravity force - As Newton and Einstein didn't specify any request for gravity energy transformation - your assumption is totally incorrect.

Both Newtonian and relativistic physics allow energy to be converted from potential to kinetic by a gravitational field, so what you are saying is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy#Newtonian_mechanics

Therefore, the statement that gravity force can't generate new energy is a severe violation of Newton law

Nowhere do any of Newton's laws state that gravitational fields can generate new energy. Supply a link from an authoritative source if you want me to take you seriously.

Again, what makes you think you can break the laws of physics?

[syhprum]

When you are in space twirling your test mass around on a string both your hand and the test mass will revolve around their mutual centre of gravity if you make an effort to maintain your hand away from the centre of gravity it will absorb energy from the system there will also be a small amount of energy radiated away in the form of gravitational waves.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The answer is in that very link:
"The fastest-known star in the Milky Way is on a path out of the galaxy, and new research suggests it was a supernova that gave it the boot".

This is fantasy.
If we set a ball on atomic bomb, is there a chance that the atomic bang will rock the ball to the moon?
Sorry, a supernova near a star should break it to pieces.
In any case, we discuss on orbital energy transformation.
Our scientists were positively sure that all of those hyper star had been ejected from the galaxy due to binary star.
They didn't mention any word about supernova.
Now that they find a star at 1200Km/s than suddenly they look for better alternative.
That proves that they really don't have a basic clue how gravity really works in the galaxy.
If they have stated that it is due to binary star and the observation contradicts this statement - It is expected that they should set this idea in the garbage.
You can't just invent new idea every time that new observation contradicts your current assumption.
If our scientists give an explanation for something and this explanation can't meet the observation - they should say: Sorry we have an error in our assumption. Clear and loud!
Once they find that a hyper star at that ultra velocity - they have to say, sorry our binary star idea can't meet this observation.
We see again and again that our scientists have a fatal error in understanding how gravity really works in the galaxy.
So far they couldn't offer any real theory that covers everything we see.
They could not even give a valid explanation for the star density and thickness of the spiral arms.
I have proved that the density wave is a pure fiction.
So, how can you claim that your current understanding in gravity is the ultimate one?
Sorry - if you wish to show that your understanding in relevant, than please give full explanation for whatever we see.
You can't just disqualify my understanding without offering real alternative.

Let me ask you again:
Please show how your current theory about gravity meets the density and thickness of the spiral arms

I did give you such an equation. The gravitational potential energy equation shows exactly that: how much energy is released by allowing an object to fall into a gravitational field or how much energy is consumed moving an object up against a gravitational field.

Yes and no.
As long as we convert the potential energy into falling kinetic energy - there is energy conservation.
However, once we deal with orbital kinetic energy - there is no energy conservation between the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy.
I have already proved that:
If you decrease the distance/radius between the objects by twice you actually increase the Potential energy by twice and get only half of the orbital kinetic energy.
So, we see clearly that the sum of the total orbital energy changing as we change the radius.
You actually have agreed with that.
Therefore, theoretically, we can agree that as long as the radius is fixed, the gravitational energy is fixed.
However, as I have already claimed, this statement is not fully correct.
Based on my understanding, the orbital kinetic energy is decreasing over time.
Therefore, the radius/distance between the orbital objects is increasing over time.
So, the increased radius between the earth/moon systems is not due to tidal but it is due to that "over time" phenomenon.
I wonder how Einstein and Newton didn't discover that phenomenon.
I know that by now you don't agree with that, but sooner or later our scientists would find that this is fully correct.

Both Newtonian and relativistic physics allow energy to be converted from potential to kinetic by a gravitational field, so what you are saying is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy#Newtonian_mechanics

Again - this doesn't cover the orbital kinetic energy.

Nowhere do any of Newton's laws state that gravitational fields can generate new energy.

He also didn't say that the orbital kinetic energy needs a transformation of energy.
He had offered the formula for gravity force.
Based on that gravity force we can extract the orbital velocity and the orbital kinetic energy.
So, for any orbital radius, there is a specific orbital velocity.
That orbital velocity is a direct outcome of the gravity force.
Hence, the orbital kinetic energy is also a direct outcome of that orbital velocity.
If the orbital is new, than the orbital kinetic energy is new!!!
Newton didn't ask for any transformation in orbital kinetic energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

When you are in space twirling your test mass around on a string both your hand and the test mass will revolve around their mutual centre of gravity if you make an effort to maintain your hand away from the centre of gravity it will absorb energy from the system there will also be a small amount of energy radiated away in the form of gravitational waves.

At the moment that you change the location of your hand - you actually change the energy.
As you change the energy you get different orbital velocity.
Our scientists think that somehow a matter can fall in and set a new star or even a new galaxy.
This is a fiction.
If you have a floating matter in space, it will never ever merge and form a new star.
The only way to set a star is by a gas cloud that orbits near a SMBH.
Even so, the matter isn't falling inwards to the center of the gas cloud in order to form a single new born star.
In reality, the matter orbits around the center of the gas cloud.
As it orbits (under the impact of a nearby SMBH's gravity force), it crystallized and theoretically could form several stars per gas cloud (that orbit around the center of the cloud).
However, as they emerge from the gas cloud, they are actually orbiting around their common center of mass, (which is probably the center of the gas cloud).
This center represents the VHP (virtual host point) which I have described in the past.

[Kryptid]

If we set a ball on atomic bomb, is there a chance that the atomic bang will rock the ball to the moon?

As a matter of fact, it is possible to accelerate objects to extremely high velocities (and even into space) using nuclear explosions: https://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-object-robert-brownlee-2016-2

Sorry, a supernova near a star should break it to pieces.

Stars are much, much larger than a ball and have a binding energy that is many orders of magnitude larger. The mass and diameter of the star isn't mentioned, but typical subdwarf stars have a mass up to about half that of the Sun with a diameter one-tenth that of the Sun. That would be a mass of about 9.9425 x 10²⁹ kilograms and a diameter of about 139,140 kilometers. The results in a surface gravity of about 1,396 times that of Earth. The calculated binding energy of such a star would be 5.6741 x 10⁴¹ joules: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Resources/Calculators/PlanetaryParameter.html

The question then becomes: can enough kinetic energy be imparted to the star to speed it up to 1,200 kilometers per second from 200 kilometers per second without giving it enough energy to destroy it in the process? The mass of the star is estimated at 9.9425 x 10²⁹ kilograms, which we put into the kinetic energy equation E_k = 0.5mv². So we get E_k = (0.5)(9.9425 x 10²⁹)(1,000,000)² = 4.97125 x 10⁴¹ joules. It's close, but this demonstrates that the star can indeed acquire the needed energy from the supernova to speed up to 1,200 kilometers per second without being destroyed. Much of the star probably was blown off in the process, actually, since O-type subdwarfs are thought to be the result of red giants having their outer layers removed by some powerful process.

Our scientists were positively sure that all of those hyper star had been ejected from the galaxy due to binary star.

According to what source?

They didn't mention any word about supernova.

The article that you linked did.

That proves that they really don't have a basic clue how gravity really works in the galaxy.

They know more than you do, since at least they recognize that gravity doesn't violate conservation of energy.

If they have stated that it is due to binary star and the observation contradicts this statement - It is expected that they should set this idea in the garbage.

The observation doesn't contradict that. I just demonstrated mathematically that a binary star system where one of the stars went supernova is a plausible mechanism for accelerating the remaining star to the observed velocity.

You can't just invent new idea every time that new observation contradicts your current assumption.

It would be stupid not to do that. You don't hold on to ideas that are shown to be wrong, so you have to invent new ideas to explain new data.

If our scientists give an explanation for something and this explanation can't meet the observation - they should say: Sorry we have an error in our assumption. Clear and loud!

They do. Our explanations for hypervelocity stars have not been falsified, however. The supernova idea works.

We see again and again that our scientists have a fatal error in understanding how gravity really works in the galaxy.

You have yet to demonstrate this. All you have demonstrated is that your mind is filled with misconceptions about physics.

I have proved that the density wave is a pure fiction.

You have done no such thing.

So, how can you claim that your current understanding in gravity is the ultimate one?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never did.

You can't just disqualify my understanding without offering real alternative.

I absolutely can do that. If you're wrong, then you're wrong. It is possible for every single idea used to explain a phenomenon to be wrong. One idea being wrong is not evidence for an alternative idea being correct. That is known as the "argument from ignorance fallacy". We know for a fact that your idea is wrong because it violates conservation of energy.

Please show how your current theory about gravity meets the density and thickness of the spiral arms

I don't need to. All I need to do is show that your explanation is wrong. It is wrong because it breaks the law of conservation of energy.

However, once we deal with orbital kinetic energy - there is no energy conservation between the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy.

There absolutely is conservation of energy in that case. Potential energy and orbital kinetic energy are forms of energy. Therefore, they fall under energy conservation.

I have already proved that:
If you decrease the distance/radius between the objects by twice you actually increase the Potential energy by twice and get only half of the orbital kinetic energy.
So, we see clearly that the sum of the total orbital energy changing as we change the radius.
You actually have agreed with that.

Of course the energy values are different at different radii. That doesn't violate conservation of energy because energy either has to be added to the orbit in order to make it larger to taken away from it to make it smaller. The orbit won't change its radius on its own and therefore the energy won't change on its own either. We've been through this before...

Based on my understanding, the orbital kinetic energy is decreasing over time.
Therefore, the radius/distance between the orbital objects is increasing over time.

The only way this can happen is if energy is being put into the system from some outside source (since a larger orbital radius has a larger total energy).

So, the increased radius between the earth/moon systems is not due to tidal but it is due to that "over time" phenomenon.

If not from tidal energy transfer, then where do you propose the energy is coming from in order to increase the total orbital energy of the Earth-Moon system? Energy that is already in existence has to transferred to the system somehow. The law of conservation of energy demands it. Remember, orbital energy is a form of energy and therefore must be conserved.

Again - this doesn't cover the orbital kinetic energy.

Orbital kinetic energy is a form of energy and therefore falls under conservation of energy.

He also didn't say that the orbital kinetic energy needs a transformation of energy.

It's a conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy, so that's exactly what Newtonian physics says. An orbit is the exact same thing as falling. It's just "missing" instead of hitting the object it's orbiting because it's travelling on a curved trajectory.

If the orbital is new, than the orbital kinetic energy is new!!!

No, it isn't. The energy was already there in the form of gravitational potential energy. Orbital kinetic energy is a form of energy and therefore must be conserved.

Newton didn't ask for any transformation in orbital kinetic energy.

Newtonian physics absolutely does recognize a transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy.

I'm still waiting for you to give some kind of authoritative source that supports your claim that gravity can create new energy. The law of conservation of energy says that it can't. All of this other stuff is irrelevant, honestly. We know that your model is wrong because gravity can't create energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Kryptid

The question then becomes: can enough kinetic energy be imparted to the star to speed it up to 1,200 kilometers per second from 200 kilometers per second without giving it enough energy to destroy it in the process? The mass of the star is estimated at 9.9425 x 1029 kilograms, which we put into the kinetic energy equation Ek = 0.5mv2. So we get Ek = (0.5)(9.9425 x 1029)(1,000,000)2 = 4.97125 x 1041 joules. It's close, but this demonstrates that the star can indeed acquire the needed energy from the supernova to speed up to 1,200 kilometers per second without being destroyed. Much of the star probably was blown off in the process, actually, since O-type subdwarfs are thought to be the result of red giants having their outer layers removed by some powerful process.

Sorry. I totally disagree
A star isn't an elastic ball that can observe the kick energy and restore it for its kinetic movement.
It is a solid object that keeps its ball shape due to gravity force.
Did you try to calculate the energy that holds any atoms in the star?
If an atom at the surface of the star will get that kind of energy, how it should react?
It is quite clear to me that if you kick a star with an energy of 4.97125 x 10^41 joules, that energy is much stronger than the total gravity energy that keeps the atoms together in order to set the ball shape.
However, Supernova is not just a pure energy. It comes with big broken objects.
We all know the outcome of one big object collision with the earth 65 million year ago (and it was not due to supernova, just a free falling object).
If some of the big broken objects from the supernova hit a nearby star at that ultra energy, they should cross though the star even before the star can open his eyes.
So, in a few moments the whole star should be broken to pieces by that ultra energy that comes with big broken objects.
It is similar to shooting a ballet into a water melon.
Try to do it and verify the outcome.
Therefore, supernova can't just kick a nearby star in order to gain the 1200Km/s without breaking it to pieces.


There is another issue - Star density.
We have a solid observation that in our aria the star density is 512 stars per 100 Ly.
So, if the supernova took place in the same radius as we are, it should affect several hundreds of stars.
Therefore, even if we accept the impossible mission and somehow it could deliver the requested energy, than why do we see only one lonely star at 1200Km/s?
Where are all the other nearby stars that were affected by that mighty supernova energy?