[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:49:20
It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.

No.
You have two choices, you can use the real radius or you can make up an "equivalent radius".
You can't have both.

I have stated clearly that the radius of the main object is used as a reference for its total mass.
The radius of the Earth is about 6000 Km, while the radius of the Sun is 696,342 km.
Now, Neutron star has a mass of 1.4 solar mass while its real radius is only 10 km.
This 10Km might be relevant to a big asteroid.
So, why are you so sure that we need to use the real radius of 10Km (that represents an asteroid) and not the equivalent radius that represents an object with has a mass of 1.4 solar mass?

This request clearly contradicts my explanation.
You keep push it just in order to show that my message is incorrect - even if you don't fulfill my clear explanation
Therefore, it is very clear to me that you have one mission -
You wish to show that whatever I say is incorrect even if you know that it is 100% correct.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:49:20
I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.

And yet, reality continues to show that it isn't.

Is it?
So, far you couldn't show any example that could contradict my explanation about the drifting direction based on the long/short range
If you still don't agree, then please try to introduce a contradiction.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

Which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is not true.

I have already given you full answer for that and for many other issues.
Why don't you read it.

[Kryptid]

The radius of a Moon, Planet and even a star is a good indication for its mass.

That's demonstrably wrong. Let's compare Titan and Mercury. Titan has a radius of about 2,575 kilometers whereas Mercury has a radius of about 2,440 kilometers. So Titan is slightly larger than Mercury and thus, according to your reasoning, should be slightly more massive than Mercury. On the contrary, Mercury is more than twice as massive as Titan (0.055 Earth masses vs. 0.0225 Earth masses).

And we can also compare the Sun with the star Arcturus. Arcturus is more than 25 times the radius of the Sun, so, according to your naive reasoning, it should be much more massive than the Sun. In reality, it's very close to the Sun's mass (1.08 solar masses). So you are just plain wrong.

[Bored chemist]

So, why are you so sure that we need to use the real radius of 10Km

Because the real radius isn't a made up number.

[Bored chemist]

I have already given you full answer for that and for many other issues.
Why don't you read it.

I read them.
I pointed out that your replies don't actually answer the problem.
So I'm asking you to try again, but using science this time.

[Bored chemist]

So, far you couldn't show any example that could contradict my explanation about the drifting direction based on the long/short range

Yes I did.
Pioneer.
But you decided to pretend that it agrees with your imaginary world.

[Kryptid]

I am also still waiting for explanation of how natural satellites are formed.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, far you couldn't show any example that could contradict my explanation about the drifting direction based on the long/short range

Yes I did.
Pioneer.
But you decided to pretend that it agrees with your imaginary world.

I have clearly answered your question:

We know that distant objects obey Newtonian gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)

Wow!!!
Thanks for that great article.
It is fully correlated with my theory.

In the article it is stated:
"As the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected.
 The spacecraft were flying with almost no additional stabilization thrusts during their "cruise",
If the positions of the spacecraft were predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they were actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year"

The outcome is:
This anomaly is now believed to be accounted for by thermal recoil forces.

However, it is also stated:
Gravity
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below). Likewise, the anomaly does not appear in the orbits of Neptune's moons, challenging the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an unconventional gravitational phenomenon based on range from the Sun.[28]

So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.
I agree with the following assumption that it is due to Kuiper belt:
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter.
As there is no dark matter, you can ignore this issue.
So, Kuiper belt has an impact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
The Kuiper belt (/ˈkaɪpər, ˈkʊɪ-/),[1] occasionally called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, is a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun.[2] It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive.
But I would even add the Oort cloud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
The Oort cloud (/ɔːrt, ʊərt/),[1] sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] first described in 1950 by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort,[3] is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 au (0.03 to 3.2 light-year
So, how it really works:
My statement is: "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"
So, as those spacecrafts do not orbit any more around the Sun or any other main object, they are not considered as gravity bonded to any main object in the solar system including any other planet or moons.  They are clearly free in the open space.
Therefore, as they enter to the aria of Kuiper belt they are surly effected by the gravity of this belt.
Our scientists have rejected this idea due to:
"However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below)"
That is perfectly Ok.
this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, Due to the idea that GRAVITY WORKS LOCALLY
As the outer planets are gravity bonded with the Sun, Kuiper_belt wouldn't have any impact on their orbital velocity.
In the same token:
All the asteroids that orbit the Sun don't care about the Earth Gravity force.
So, if a group of one billion asteroids cross the orbital path of the earth, some of them might directly collide with the earth and fall in as meteors, but NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!
Please remember - "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"

Later on I will explain how the whole spiral galaxy is directly effected by this anomaly.

[Bored chemist]

So, the best you can say is that your idea is not inconsistent with what scientists have written off.
As I said .

But you decided to pretend that it agrees with your imaginary world.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That's demonstrably wrong. Let's compare Titan and Mercury. Titan has a radius of about 2,575 kilometers whereas Mercury has a radius of about 2,440 kilometers. So Titan is slightly larger than Mercury and thus, according to your reasoning, should be slightly more massive than Mercury. On the contrary, Mercury is more than twice as massive as Titan (0.055 Earth masses vs. 0.0225 Earth masses).
And we can also compare the Sun with the star Arcturus. Arcturus is more than 25 times the radius of the Sun, so, according to your naive reasoning, it should be much more massive than the Sun. In reality, it's very close to the Sun's mass (1.08 solar masses). So you are just plain wrong.

Well, I fully agree that the radius isn't a perfect indication for the total mass of the object.
As the density of the matter has also an impact on the total mass.
However, I have found it as a relatively good indication (we can always improve it).
The difference in the mass between Titan and Mercury that have a similar radius is twice.
However I still took some margin between the short to long range.
I wish I could find better accurate indication.
Therefore, this difference in mass between Titan and Mercury is not so critical in our verification between short and long.
With regards to Arcturus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcturus
it is currently ascending the red-giant branch and will continue to do so until it accumulates a large enough degenerate helium core to ignite the helium flash.[7] It has likely exhausted the hydrogen from its core and is now in its active hydrogen shell burning phase. However, Charbonnel et al. (1998) placed it slightly above the horizontal branch, and suggested it has already completed the helium flash stage.[32]
So, it is not a "normal" star as the Sun. "It has likely exhausted the hydrogen from its core and is now in its active hydrogen shell burning phase."
Therefore, its current radius is relatively so big.
In this case, I would use the real radius for the Long/short estimation.

However, In order to verify if my estimation is correct, I have taken few examples from the following list (which confirms my estimation):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs

Sirius A
Mass   2.063 ± 0.023[11] M☉
Radius   1.711[12] R☉

Epsilon Eridani
Mass   0.82±0.02[10][11] M☉
Radius   0.735±0.005[12] R☉

61 Cygni A
Mass   0.70[10] M☉
Radius   0.665 ±0.005[11] R☉

Tau Ceti
Mass   0.783±0.012[2] M☉
Radius   0.793±0.004[2] R☉

[Bored chemist]

t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!

the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.

You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I am also still waiting for explanation of how natural satellites are formed.

I have already explained this issue:

Please remember that all the planets and moons in the solar system had been created from the same giant gas cloud (Similar to G1 and G2.) near the SMBH and at the same time.
As almost 98% of the matter is based on Hydrogen and helium, the solid matter in the Moon (or the planet) was less than 2% from the total matter in their creation time.
So, the moon and the earth were born as a compact gas clouds. Over time the solid matter moved inwards due to gravity, while most of the hydrogen and helium have been evaporated to the open space.
This is the only way to get a nice ball shape of a solid planet or moon.
We actually have a solid prove for that.
The gravity force between the Sun/Moon is more than twice stronger than the gravity force of the Moon/earth gravity.
So, why the Moon orbits around the earth and not around the sun?
The answer is quite simple:
The current mass of the moon or the earth is less than 2% from their mass in the creation date.
So, each one of them had almost 50 times its current mass.
They were also closer to each other.
Therefore, during the creation process, the Moon had been locked to earth by their higher gravity force.
This also proves that objects do not change the hosting object even if their gravity force had been reduced dramatically.
Hence, if an object is coming from the open space it will continue to the open space or collide with the nearby object.
It would never ever set a circular orbital cycle with that object.

I would like to add the following:
If one day the Moon would be disconnected from the earth gravity, it won't orbit around the Sun, but it would surly escape to the open space.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.

As I have already explained, the whole solar system (including all the planets and moons) has been created at the same moment near the SMBH from the same matter that was created in by the accretion disc. So we must call it excretion disc.

[Bored chemist]

As I have already explained,

That's an assertion, not an explanation.
To claim that the whole (rather diverse) solar system was created at the same time is absurd.

[Bored chemist]

I would like to add the following:
If one day the Moon would be disconnected from the earth gravity, it won't orbit around the Sun, but it would surly escape to the open space.

No, it wouldn't.
Escape velocity from the Sun (starting from near the Earth's orbit) is 42 km/sec
The Earth's orbital velocity is 29 km/s
And the Moon's is about 1 km/s

You can't add 29 and 1 to give an answer bigger than 42.

Try doing science; it can be very rewarding.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

To claim that the whole (rather diverse) solar system was created at the same time is absurd.

Ok
I disagree with this message and you reject most/all of my messages.

Stars, Planets and moons can ONLY be created in a gas cloud near a massive object as a SMBH at the same moment.
The current theory about the following star Population is a clearly incorrect:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Population-I
Population I objects are thought to have originated from interstellar gas that has undergone various kinds of processes, including supernova explosions, which enriched the constituent matter.
This idea is totally incorrect!
The matter that had been ejected outwards to the open space due to supernova would NEVER EVER be reused to form new star.
It would become a star dust. No more no less. It also might fall on some existing star or planet, but it can't be used to create new star.
It is also stated: "All known Population I members occur near and in the arms of the Milky Way system and other spiral galaxies"
The Solar system is located at a spiral arm. So, do we have any real observation to confirm that understanding, or is it one more wishful list of our scientists?

Just a few questions with regards to spiral galaxy:
1. Do you confirm that in the bulge the stars orbit at all directions?
2. If so, how could it be that when we move away from the Bulge (in the direction of the bar and ring) suddenly the galaxy gets a disc shape?
3. How the Bar and the ring had been created?
4. Why the thickness of the spiral arms at the innermost side (ring)  is about 3,000 LY, while at the outermost is only 400Ly?

[Bored chemist]

I disagree with this message and you reject most/all of my messages.

Your disagreement with reasonable things is... troubling.
Have you seen anyone about it?
Do you accept that 29000 and 1000 isn't 42000?

The matter that had been ejected outwards to the open space due to supernova would NEVER EVER be reused to form new star.

Is that assertion made on the same basis that you think the Moon does not exist?

[Kryptid]

So, the moon and the earth were born as a compact gas clouds.

How did those two gas clouds come to orbit each other if you claim that objects cannot capture each other gravitationally?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How did those two gas clouds come to orbit each other if you claim that objects cannot capture each other gravitationally?

Do you really have an interest in theory D or do you wish to show why whatever I say is just incorrect?
So, lm going to answer your question, however, let me first show now why our scientists don't have a basic clue how stars and planets have been formed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
1. collapse and form star - "Star formation is the process by which dense regions within molecular clouds in interstellar space, sometimes referred to as "stellar nurseries" or "star-forming regions", collapse and form stars.[".
So our hope that somehow dense regions within molecular clouds would collapse and form star.
The idea is as follow:
Cloud collapse
"An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force."
"Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[16] "
If that is the case, then it is clear that it won't be collapsed.
However, they have a brilliant idea:
If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse"
This is a pure fiction an imagination.
There is no boarder for a gas cloud. Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards and not inwards.
Hence, if due to some imagination, after the big bang there was a dense gas could, then the internal gas in that cloud must be evaporated and expand with all the expanding Universe. Not even a single star could be created.
Why a cloud would be massive enough to collapse?
In our imaginary BBT universe of inflation and expansion every moment later, there is less density everywhere. Therefore, if there is a gas cloud, it must expand and not collapse.

A gas cloud would never ever collapse only by its internal forces.
The only way to start the star formation activity is by external forces as I will explain later on.

2. Atom creation -Our scientists claim that when the universe was at age of 380 the energy in the whole Universe had been converted to real Atoms. This is for sure one more imagination as energy can't be converted to atoms without a transformation process as electromagnetic field. So I claim that without electromagnetic, not even a single Hydrogen atom could be created!

3. Universe size - At that age of 380 My, the early Universe was very compact. Now try to estimate the matter in whole Universe. Try to set all the Galaxis/stars/atoms in the Universe in that compact size. You would find that even if we set the galaxies Back to back, we need much more space than that compact size.
So, 13.8 BY ago our Universe was surly much bigger than any sort of a compact imagination size.

4. Binary Star: "Star formation theory, as well as accounting for the formation of a single star, must also account for the statistics of binary stars and the initial mass function."
Now it is more complicate.
You wish that this somehow "collapse process" would also create binary stars.
How could it be?
If the matter had been collapsed (to the center I assume), then why it could form more than one single star?

5. Formation of Rocky planets
This is even much more complicated process:
"According to the solar nebular disk model, rocky planets form in the inner part of the protoplanetary disk, within the frost line, where the temperature is high enough to prevent condensation of water ice and other substances into grains.[62]"
In one hand they hope that the matter should collapse and then they claim that there is a protoplanetary disc. How could it be?
If the matter collapse it falls in and there is no disc.
I have already explained clearly that matter would never ever move in to a lower radius or disc and get higher orbital velocity.
This is a pure imagination.
So, if our scientists claim for collapse, than the matter should collapse in and set one single star. No more no less.
Based on the collapse idea, not even a single rocky planet would be created.

6. Rocky planetesimals -
It is stated: "This results in coagulation of purely rocky grains and later in the formation of rocky planetesimals.[c][62] Such conditions are thought to exist in the inner 3–4 AU part of the disk of a Sun-like star.[2] After small planetesimals—about 1 km in diameter—have formed by one way or another, runaway accretion begins.[18]
Sorry again. Not even a single rocky planetesimal could be created in that accretion disc.
Do we see any planetesimal in the accretion disc? Actually, that runway accretion Process/disc would blow away any object that would be there. We see it clearly in the accretion disc around the SMBH. Even the atoms had been broken to particles. So, if there is any sort of accretion, nothing would be created there.

7. Mass increases - "It is called runaway because the mass growth rate is proportional to R4~M4/3, where R and M are the radius and mass of the growing body, respectively.[63] The specific (divided by mass) growth accelerates as the mass increases"
Sorry, they can dream about mass increases, but that mass wouldn't be able to form even one single moon around the Sun.

8.Time and distance - " This leads to the preferential growth of larger bodies at the expense of smaller ones.[18] The runaway accretion lasts between 10,000 and 100,000 years and ends when the largest bodies exceed approximately 1,000 km in diameter.[18]
Is it real? How do they know the time, while we clearly know that the accretion disc must break down any object there?

9. Slowing of the accretion - "Slowing of the accretion is caused by gravitational perturbations by large bodies on the remaining planetesimals.[18][63] In addition, the influence of larger bodies stops further growth of smaller bodies.[18]"
Ok
Now they do understand that in order to get an object they must slow down the accretion.
So, how could they claim that something could be created due to accretion?
It seems to me that they play with the nature as they wish.
They have started with the idea that somehow matter would collapse and set runaway accretion and then it is requested to slow down.
All of that by the internal forces of the gas itself.
Wow.
This is really unbelievable.
I can go on and on in that article just to find that all of that explanation is totally unrealistic!!!

10. For example - A planet that had been created by rocky matter would never ever form a nice ball shape.

11. There is another issue - That planet can't be created directly from the matter of the Big bang. We all know that after the Big bang we have only got Hydrogen atoms. So, theoretically, all the rocky matter in our planets had been created from the matter that had been ejected from a dead star by a supernova.
And how many supernovas do we see?
Do you really believe that the whole planets and moons in the solar system had been created from supernova?
However, If there was a supernova, then don't you agree that all the matter had been ejected in all directions at ultra high velocity.

12. Actually, they claim that the whole solar system had been created from the same gas cloud.
So, let's assume that somehow there was some rocky matter in that cloud. In this case, why that heavy matter didn't collapse inwards first?
Why do they wish to believe that the light gas as Hydrogen and helium would collapse in and set the Sun, while all the heavy rocky matter would stay outside just to bring us our wish and form planets and moons?

Sorry, that story is absolutely none realistic

Once you understand the difficulties in that process, I will explain how the whole Solar system was really created..

[Bored chemist]

Do you really have an interest in theory D or do you wish to show why whatever I say is just incorrect?

Those are the same thing.

[Kryptid]

Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards and not inwards.

The Sun is made of gas, but it has a practically constant size because it's in a state of equilibrium. It isn't expanding outward. So your claim is observably incorrect.

Your post is full of ignorance and doesn't address my question at all.