Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 172

Thread: Trojan

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Clear.

    Would you kindly move this tread to ATM so I can continue the discussion?
    OK, your thread. Unfortunately, that limits some of the on-going side discussion, which will have to be taken up somewhere else.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Thanks

    Now I will explain why Trojan Point is the ultimate solution for the spiral galaxy shape.

    Let's continue with the discussion about presues tail.
    Actually, lets focus on the last Trojan camp in this tail.
    What kind of forces it might have?
    It has noting in his tail, but there are several other Trojan camps in front.
    So, it is "connected" by gravity power to those camps.

    Hence, this last Trojan camp has a Trojan point which is "connected" to the equivalent primary point of all the other stars in front of its location.

    However, there is no "connected" in gravity.
    When we think on gravity, we think about orbiting process.
    So the question should be: How could it be that there is a gravity connection without the basic orbiting process.

    The answer is: Yes, there is an orbiting activity.
    This last Trojan camp (By his Trojan point) actually orbits around the equivalent primary point of all the other Trojan camps that are located in front.
    Technically, if we could stop in space the movement of this equivalent primary point, we would see that the last Trojan camp will set full orbit cycle around this point.
    However, as the equivalent primary point is moving in space, although the last trojan camp always keeps its steady orbit cycle around it, it looks as it is "connected" together.

    I hope that I have explained myself correctly.
    Please let me know if you have any question on this issue.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-06 at 12:59 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    623
    That's a word sallad not physics. If you want to propose advances to the current state of physics you need quantitative statements, i.e. you need to describe your ideas using mathematical language. There is really no way to do this without actual knowing the relevant scientific disciplines which you obviously don't.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    O.K.

    As you ask for mathematical language, let me focus on the Sun motion in the galaxy:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._is_wrong.html

    It is stated:

    "A far more correct (though exaggerrated vertically for clarity) depiction of the Sun's motion around the Milky Way galaxy has it bobbing up and down every 64 million years due to the gravity of the galactic disk."

    So, the Sun is bobbing up and down from the galactic disk - every 64 Million years.
    Our scientists claim that it is due to the gravity of the galactic disc.

    The explanation is as follow:

    "That’s because of the way the gravity in the disk works. This is actually pretty cool: If you are slightly above the disk you feel an overall pull down, toward the disk. Imagine the disk is just a huge slab of matter, and the Sun is above it. The gravity of the disk would make the Sun plunge down into it. Since stars are so far apart, the Sun would go right through the disk and out the bottom. But then the disk would be pulling it up, once again toward the disk. The Sun would slow, stop, and reverse course, plummeting into the disk once again. It gets about 200 or so light years from the midplane of the galactic disk every time its bobs"

    Is it correct?
    I don't think so.

    The gravity power is decreasing as you increase the distance.
    So, as the Sun is moving further away from the Disc plan, the gravity power of the disc is decreasing dramatically.
    Therefore, if you hope that the gravity of the galactic disk will bring back our sun, it won't work!
    The sun would be ejected from the galaxy!

    In reallity - the Sun orbits around its Trojan point.
    Therefore, it is moving up and down without any problem.

    It is similar to the movement of the moon around the Sun while its moving up and down from the solar system disc plan due to the orbital cycles around the Earth.

    However, if you think that the sun motion is due to the gravity of the galactic disk, would you kindly present the mathematical prove for that?
    I couldn't find it.

    There are two more open issues:

    1. It is stated:
    "The gravity of the disk would make the Sun plunge down into it"
    In one hand you claim that there is no need for gravity or Trojan point to explain the structure of the spiral galaxy:

    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    We don't. The spiral structure is explained by density waves.
    As the stracture of the spiral galaxy is based on Density_wave_theory (no need for gravity).
    However, for the motion of the Sun you call for the galactic disk gravity.

    If there is gravity in the galactic disk, why it only applie to the Sun Motion?
    Why it has no effect on other stars motion?

    2. It is stated:
    "The Sun would slow, stop, and reverse course, plummeting into the disk once again"
    This is really imagination.
    The Sun never ever stop its velocity.
    It orbits around its Trojan point in a constant speed (or almost constant)
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-06 at 04:46 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    The gravity power is decreasing as you increase the distance.
    So, as the Sun is moving further away from the Disc plan, the gravity power of the disc is decreasing dramatically.
    Therefore, if you hope that the gravity of the galactic disk will bring back our sun, it won't work!
    The sun would be ejected from the galaxy!
    This is nonsense.
    1) The gravity of a disc does not fall off dramatically with distance. In fact, when you're inside the disc, the force component towards the central plane increases with distance from the central plane.
    2) The gravity of the Earth decreases with distance, but things still fall back to the surface after being thrown upwards. They only escape if they are thrown upwards at ... well, escape velocity.

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    This is nonsense.
    1) The gravity of a disc does not fall off dramatically with distance. In fact, when you're inside the disc, the force component towards the central plane increases with distance from the central plane.
    I do not understand this explanation.
    In any case, in your words you claim that: "The gravity of a disc does not fall off dramatically with distance". So you agree that as the Sun is moving away from the disc plane the gravity force is decreasing. Even if you believe that it is not dramatically, it is still decreasing.
    So, as the sun moves to longer distance from the disc, it gets less and less gravity power.
    The outcome is quite clear - It will be ejected from the galaxy.

    However - As requested by glappkaeft

    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    you need to describe your ideas using mathematical language.
    So, would you kindly describe this idea using mathematical language.
    I would like to see how decreasing gravity power can pull back the Sun.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-06 at 05:15 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    I do not understand this explanation.
    In any case, in your words you claim that: "The gravity of a disc does not fall off dramatically with distance". So you agree that as the Sun is moving away from the disc plane the gravity force is decreasing. Even if you believe that it is not dramatically, it is still decreasing.
    So, as the sun moves to longer distance from the disc, it gets less and less gravity power.
    The outcome is quite clear - It will be ejected from the galaxy.
    Nonsense.
    I've already told you the force of gravity normal to the plane of the galactic disc is actually increasing with distance from the galactic midplane, in the Sun's position embedded in the galactic disc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, would you kindly describe this idea using mathematical language.
    I would like to see how decreasing gravity power can pull back the Sun.
    Increasing gravity, in the case of the sun's motion within the galactic disc, as already stated.
    It's not my job to teach you basic physics, and I'm disinclined to do so now that you've moved your thread into ATM.
    However, now that you've moved your thread into ATM, it is your job to demonstrate why you think disc gravity can't keep an object in an orbit that oscillates vertically through the midplane.

    Grant Hutchison

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    ISo, would you kindly describe this idea using mathematical language.
    I would like to see how decreasing gravity power can pull back the Sun.
    I not a mind-reader and I have no idea how to construct a mathematical framework that describes your misconceptions about physics. In fact that pretty much your job since this is the ATM forum.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I've already told you the force of gravity normal to the plane of the galactic disc is actually increasing with distance from the galactic midplane, in the Sun's position embedded in the galactic disc.
    Wow.
    So you claim that the gravity of the galactic disc is increasing as we move further away.

    For example -
    The gravity power of the Galactic disc at 10 LY from the disc is higher than 1LY.
    The gravity power of the Galactic disc at 100 LY is higher than 10LY.
    The gravity power of the Galactic disc at 1000 LY is higher than 100LY.
    and so on.

    Do I understand you correctly?
    If so, how could it be?
    Would you kindly prove it mathematically?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    I not a mind-reader and I have no idea how to construct a mathematical framework that describes your misconceptions about physics. In fact that pretty much your job since this is the ATM forum.

    O.K.

    the gravity formula is as follow:

    http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physi...y-formula.html

    The Force due to gravity are given by formula F = G x m1 x m2 / R^2

    It is clear that as you increase the distance, you decrease the gravity power.
    So, now it is your job to prove the opposite.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, now it is your job to prove the opposite.
    No, that is not sufficient to validate your ideas. It has no bearing on your ATM what so ever as I understand it, in fact the idea could very much benefit from a post with a clear statement of your ATM position. Asking me to prove a negative straw-man position entirely of your own construction is highly insulting and I very much would appropriate if you'd stop that.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Wow.
    So you claim that the gravity of the galactic disc is increasing as we move further away.

    For example -
    The gravity power of the Galactic disc at 10 LY from the disc is higher than 1LY.
    The gravity power of the Galactic disc at 100 LY is higher than 10LY.
    The gravity power of the Galactic disc at 1000 LY is higher than 100LY.
    and so on.

    Do I understand you correctly?
    If so, how could it be?
    Would you kindly prove it mathematically?
    You understand me correctly.* It's a standard result, based on a proper understanding of how gravity works within an extended object, like a disc of finite thickness.

    The formula GM/r^2 applies to the gravity field outside a spherically symmetrical object, not inside a disc.

    In any case, if you throw something upwards within a gravity field that declines with 1/r^2 (like, above the surface of the Earth), it comes down again. Why do you deny that is possible?

    Grant Hutchison

    *The "and so on" does not apply, however. At 1000 light years we've moved outside the galactic disc, and we need to start thinking about the external gravitational field of a disc, not the internal field.
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-Jan-06 at 06:44 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Really simple argument:
    Imagine a thick disc of uniform density.
    Place an object in the geometrical centre of this disc. The object is surrounded by an equal mass distribution in all directions, so the net gravitational force on it must be zero.
    Move the object to the surface of the disc, again centred. The object now has all the mass distributed below it, and none above, so the net gravitational force must be non-zero, and directed towards the disc.

    Therefore, if we move the object from the geometrical centre of the disc to the centre of its surface, the gravitational force it experiences must increase from zero to some non-zero value.

    Although the sun is not at the centre of the galaxy, the same argument applies - the gravitational force now resolves into a radial force (which keeps the sun in orbit around the galaxy) and a force normal to the plane of the galaxy, which is zero when the sun is in the midplane, and which increases as it moves away from the midplane, pulling the sun back towards the midplane.

    Grant Hutchison

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You understand me correctly.
    It's a standard result, based on a proper understanding of how gravity works within an extended object, like a disc of finite thickness.

    The formula GM/r^2 applies to the gravity field outside a spherically symmetrical object, not inside a disc.
    O.K.

    You claim that the formula GM/r^2 applies to the gravity field outside a spherically symmetrical object, not inside a disc.
    However:
    You do not specify the following:
    1. What is the relevant gravity formula "inside a disc". I would like to see it.
    2. What is considered as "inside a disc". Up to what distance from the disc plan?


    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Really simple argument:
    Imagine a thick disc of uniform density.
    Place an object in the geometrical centre of this disc. The object is surrounded by an equal mass distribution in all directions, so the net gravitational force on it must be zero.
    Move the object to the surface of the disc, again centred. The object now has all the mass distributed below it, and none above, so the net gravitational force must be non-zero, and directed towards the disc.

    Therefore, if we move the object from the geometrical centre of the disc to the centre of its surface, the gravitational force it experiences must increase from zero to some non-zero value.

    Although the sun is not at the centre of the galaxy, the same argument applies - the gravitational force now resolves into a radial force (which keeps the sun in orbit around the galaxy) and a force normal to the plane of the galaxy, which is zero when the sun is in the midplane, and which increases as it moves away from the midplane, pulling the sun back towards the midplane.

    Grant Hutchison
    That is very interesting explanation.
    However:
    Each star planet or moon has its own primary point (or trojan point).
    The star must orbit around this point.

    For example - let's look at the moon/Earth/Sun System.
    The moon orbits around the center of mass of the Moon/Earth (This is its primary point which is located very close to the Earth).
    It will follow that point to any direction and at any speed.
    As that center of mass orbits around the Sun the moon will also set full movement around the sun, but at any given moment - it will orbit around its primary point!
    So, it won't follow any other point. Only its primary point

    In the same token;
    The Sun orbits around its primary point.
    However, which kind of mass/stars effects this sun' primary point and where is it located?
    Let me use your message:
    "The object is surrounded by an equal mass distribution in all directions, so the net gravitational force on it must be zero"
    So, if the surrounded mass/stars set the location and value for that primary point - than the outcome is as follow:
    It will orbit around its primary point and follow after any change in direction of that point - up or down.

    However, if that is correct, than we have just confirmed the idea that the spiral galaxy is based on gravity.
    Do you agree with that?
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-06 at 08:10 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post

    In any case, if you throw something upwards within a gravity field that declines with 1/r^2 (like, above the surface of the Earth), it comes down again. Why do you deny that is possible?
    Easy!
    If you throw something upwards, it comes down again.
    BUT, it must reduce its velocity, stop and then come back.
    If the Sun stop and come back than I fully accept your explanation.
    However, based on my understanding, the Sun never reduces its velocity.
    Therefore, this theory is not relevant.
    It is clear that it orbits around its primary point and follows after its movement in the galaxy (also up or down)
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-06 at 08:20 PM.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    That is very interesting explanation.
    However:
    Each star planet or moon has its own primary point (or trojan point).
    The star must orbit around this point.
    There is one source of your confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Easy!
    If you throw something upwards, it comes down again.
    BUT, it must reduce its velocity, stop and then come back.
    If the Sun stop and come back than I fully accept your explanation.
    However, based on my understanding, the Sun never reduces its velocity.
    Therefore, this theory is not relevant.
    It is clear that it orbits around its primary point and follows after its movement in the galaxy (also up or down)
    And there is another source of your confusion.

    1) Gravity is only a central force in spherically symmetrical situations. The galaxy is not spherically symmetrical. I suggest you do some reading on the gravity of discs.
    2) The sun stops and comes back and again. While it continues to move around the galaxy with a roughly constant speed, its speed normal to the galactic plane cycles continuously between northward and southward, passing through zero when it reaches its farthest excursions from the galactic plane. It's exactly analogous to a ball thrown between two people - it travels horizontally at a constant speed, and in the vertical direction it stops and comes back again. I suggest you do some reading on the way instantaneous velocity vectors can be broken down into separate components.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    O.K.

    You claim that the formula GM/r^2 applies to the gravity field outside a spherically symmetrical object, not inside a disc.
    However:
    You do not specify the following:
    1. What is the relevant gravity formula "inside a disc". I would like to see it.
    Irrelevant to the argument. I've demonstrated that the force must increase, which is the opposite of your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    2. What is considered as "inside a disc". Up to what distance from the disc plan?
    In my example, "inside the disc" means "inside the disc" - within its substance.
    For the situation of the galaxy, we can model it as a an interpenetrating set of such constant-density discs.

    Grant Hutchison

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Is it correct?
    Yes.

    The gravity power is decreasing as you increase the distance.
    So, as the Sun is moving further away from the Disc plan, the gravity power of the disc is decreasing dramatically.
    Therefore, if you hope that the gravity of the galactic disk will bring back our sun, it won't work!
    The sun would be ejected from the galaxy!
    You really need to understand the basic physics before making statements like this. The gravity does decrease with distance but that doesn't mean it can't still pull something back. By your logic, when you throw a ball up in the air, it should never come down again because gravity is getting weaker as it moves up. You need to read up about the concept of "escape velocity".

    A better analogy for the Sun's movement would be a pendulum. It swings up and then (despite gravity decreasing with distance) falls back again and overshoots to go the other way.

    In one hand you claim that there is no need for gravity or Trojan point to explain the structure of the spiral galaxy:

    As the stracture of the spiral galaxy is based on Density_wave_theory (no need for gravity).
    No one said there is no need for gravity. The density wave theory depends on gravity.

    If there is gravity in the galactic disk, why it only applie to the Sun Motion?
    Why it has no effect on other stars motion?
    Gravity obviously affects all the mass in the galaxy: stars, planets, dust and gas.

    2. It is stated:
    "The Sun would slow, stop, and reverse course, plummeting into the disk once again"
    This is really imagination.
    No. It is physics.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    <snip>
    So, now it is your job to prove the opposite.
    No, it isn't.

    Dave Lee, you should know by now that it in ATM only you are responsible to prove anything. Others may help you learn the mainstream science, or not, as they see fit. But they don't have to prove mainstream science.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    No one said there is no need for gravity. The density wave theory depends on gravity.
    For that matter, objects are held in the Lagrangian points entirely by gravity. There is no additional "Trojan phenomenon", just massive bodies moving under the influence of gravity.

    It's been said before, but once again: Trojan points are solutions of the 3-body problem. They are valid when you have a large central body, a much smaller secondary body, and a third body of negligible mass. The gravity and motions of the two main bodies combine to stabilize a third object in the same orbit as the secondary. The gravity of the secondary nudges small masses back into their relative orbital position, so they don't drift out of position and make a close pass of the secondary, throwing them into a dramatically different orbit. There's nothing mysterious going on here. Not only are they quite straightforward to reproduce in simulation, they are some of the easiest systems to analyze mathematically.

    With galaxies, there is no primary or secondary. Stars move under the gravitation of all the other stars, gas, dust, and other matter in the galaxy, there are no Trojan points. There is no simple equation you can punch some numbers into, it depends on the mass distribution and location. Within the thickness of the disk, gravitation toward the central plane increases as you move away from that plane. Outside the disk, it decreases with distance, but objects will still require some minimum velocity in order to escape.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,968
    Let me add that if we could magically make the mass of the disk vanishingly small and just leave a spherical core as the significant source of gravity, the Sun would simply be in an orbit that is inclined to the plane of the disk, with one up and down cycle per orbital period. This "bobbing", which I am guessing is a popular media verbal creation, is simply a rapid precession of the plane of the orbit. If I am not mistaken, it is analogous to what a satellite in a low Earth orbit does in response to Earth's equatorial bulge, only faster in proportion to the orbital period. It makes 3 or 4 cycles per orbit, while the satellite takes many orbits to make one cycle.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There is one source of your confusion.

    And there is another source of your confusion.

    1) Gravity is only a central force in spherically symmetrical situations. The galaxy is not spherically symmetrical. I suggest you do some reading on the gravity of discs.
    2) The sun stops and comes back and again. While it continues to move around the galaxy with a roughly constant speed, its speed normal to the galactic plane cycles continuously between northward and southward, passing through zero when it reaches its farthest excursions from the galactic plane. It's exactly analogous to a ball thrown between two people - it travels horizontally at a constant speed, and in the vertical direction it stops and comes back again. I suggest you do some reading on the way instantaneous velocity vectors can be broken down into separate components.

    Grant Hutchison

    Sorry, The Sun never stop. Never Ever!!
    What we see is a pure orbital Cycle of the Sun around its Trojan point.
    Therefore, isn't moving randomly up and down.
    It is not some kind of a ball which it thrown upwards and then goes down wards.
    It is a simple orbital activity based on Newton law.
    So, if you monitor carefully the movement of the Sun, you should see that it is moving almost in a perfect orbital cycle around its Trojan point.
    However, this Trojan point is also moving due to the galaxy rotation.
    Therefore, we should see a perfect cyclic movement of the Sun, crossing the disc plan - up and down and tracing the whole movement of the spiral arm.

    The whole idea of the Density_wave_theory is random movement.
    However, all the stars in our Galaxy are moving according to Newton law. ALL of them!!!
    There is no random movement in our galaxy.
    If all the stars were moving randomly, we could get the same impact as we see in Saturn's rings
    A simple Star Dust due to the collisions between all the objects in that ring.

    There are 400 Billion stars in our galaxy.
    How many collisions do we see?
    How many? Virtually ZERO!!!
    Why?
    Thanks to Newton.
    Based on his power all the stars are hold in Trojan camps, and they move all together as a pack without even a single collision.

    In order to explain the Density_wave_theory, I have seen that our scientists are using an example of highway.
    However, they have forgotten that there are severe collisions in highway as there is no synchronization between the cars.
    Each one is moving it its own speed.
    If the speed of one is decreasing, the outcome might be a severe accident.
    That is not the case in Spiral galaxy.
    All the stars are moving in full synchronization!
    However,
    The synchronization is based on their Trojan point.
    Hence, each star in the galaxy must orbit around its Trojan point, while all the Trojan points are fully synchronized.
    The outcome is - That at any given moment we can see the stars moving at a totally different directions (up, down, left right), but all of them are moving in the long run together without even a single collision!!

    Based on that real movement I can explain any aspect of spiral galaxy.
    It is so simple!

    I do believe that I should get reward for my discovery!
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-07 at 05:11 PM.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Sorry, The Sun never stop. Never Ever!!
    And yet it stops.

    ETA: But you really need to sort out what your claim actually is. According to you, gravity can't stop the sun escaping out of the galactic plane. You use this as justification for whatever it is that you're proposing, which you claim does stop the sun escaping out of the galactic plane. So the fact that the sun stops moving north and starts moving south again is a key point in your argument. Yet you're now asserting the contrary, which is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-Jan-07 at 05:43 PM.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Sorry, The Sun never stop. Never Ever!!
    What we see is a pure orbital Cycle of the Sun around its Trojan point.
    Therefore, isn't moving randomly up and down.
    It is not some kind of a ball which it thrown upwards and then goes down wards.
    It is a simple orbital activity based on Newton law.
    So, if you monitor carefully the movement of the Sun, you should see that it is moving almost in a perfect orbital cycle around its Trojan point.
    However, this Trojan point is also moving due to the galaxy rotation.
    Therefore, we should see a perfect cyclic movement of the Sun, crossing the disc plan - up and down and tracing the whole movement of the spiral arm.

    The whole idea of the Density_wave_theory is random movement.
    However, all the stars in our Galaxy are moving according to Newton law. ALL of them!!!
    There is no random movement in our galaxy.
    If all the stars were moving randomly, we could get the same impact as we see in Saturn's rings
    A simple Star Dust due to the collisions between all the objects in that ring.

    There are 400 Billion stars in our galaxy.
    How many collisions do we see?
    How many? Virtually ZERO!!!
    Why?
    Thanks to Newton.
    Based on his power all the stars are hold in Trojan camps, and they move all together as a pack without even a single collision.

    In order to explain the Density_wave_theory, I have seen that our scientists are using an example of highway.
    However, they have forgotten that there are severe collisions in highway as there is no synchronization between the cars.
    Each one is moving it its own speed.
    If the speed of one is decreasing, the outcome might be a severe accident.
    That is not the case in Spiral galaxy.
    All the stars are moving in full synchronization!
    However,
    The synchronization is based on their Trojan point.
    Hence, each star in the galaxy must orbit around its Trojan point, while all the Trojan points are fully synchronized.
    The outcome is - That at any given moment we can see the stars moving at a totally different directions (up, down, left right), but all of them are moving in the long run together without even a single collision!!

    Based on that real movement I can explain any aspect of spiral galaxy.
    It is so simple!

    I do believe that I should get reward for my discovery!
    I stand by what I said in my previous post. This batch of word salad does not show any evidence that this poster has the foggiest idea about the facts of gravitation that have been so rigorously analyzed for many decades. The challenge is for him to walk us through the mainstream studies in appropriate mathematical detail, and to show us where he thinks the scientists messed up, and give a convincing reason why he thinks so.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    It is a simple orbital activity based on Newton law.
    Well yes, at least to a large degree, when dark matter and other disturbances is take into account.

    So, if you monitor carefully the movement of the Sun, you should see that it is moving almost in a perfect orbital cycle around its Trojan point.
    Since mainstream physics doesn't have a concept of the sun Trojan point you need to define this.

    The whole idea of the Density_wave_theory is random movement.
    Not at all and I challenge you to support this statement.

    However, all the stars in our Galaxy are moving according to Newton law. ALL of them!!!
    Newtonian physics have been shown since the late 20s/30s to be insufficient to explain galaxy dynamics (Lundmark, Zwicky, et al.). Lundmark was probably the first astronomer to describe the effect of dark matter in 1930 even if it took many years for the modern interpretation to mature. I might be a bit biased as I used to use the same telescope in Uppsala that Knut Lundmark used to study the distances (using Novas) to the Andromeda galaxy for astronomy outreach (the astrograf is used as a backup when the main building with it's 1892 double refactor can't handle the amount of visitors).

    In order to explain the Density_wave_theory, I have seen that our scientists are using an example of highway.
    However, they have forgotten that there are severe collisions in highway as there is no synchronization between the cars.
    Each one is moving it its own speed.
    If the speed of one is decreasing, the outcome might be a severe accident.
    That is not the case in Spiral galaxy.
    All the stars are moving in full synchronization!
    However,
    The synchronization is based on their Trojan point.
    Hence, each star in the galaxy must orbit around its Trojan point, while all the Trojan points are fully synchronized.
    The outcome is - That at any given moment we can see the stars moving at a totally different directions (up, down, left right), but all of them are moving in the long run together without even a single collision!!

    Based on that real movement I can explain any aspect of spiral galaxy.
    It is so simple!

    I do believe that I should get reward for my discovery!
    Nothing you have said has anything to do with physics so no, you don't get a reward.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    The challenge is for him to walk us through the mainstream studies in appropriate mathematical detail, and to show us where he thinks the scientists messed up, and give a convincing reason why he thinks so.
    With regards to the Density_wave_theory:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory
    Please focus on Animation 3:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ation_wave.ogv
    "Orbits predicted by the density wave theory allow the existence of stable spiral arms. Stars move in and out of the spiral arms as they orbit the galaxy."

    What do you see?
    Don't you see that the stars are moving in all directions, in and out up and down?

    Based on that Density_wave_theory what is the chance for collisions between the stars?
    Is it 1%, 10% or 50%?
    How many collision between stars do we really see?
    How could it be that there is virtually Zero collisions in our galaxy, although based on Density_wave_theory the chance for collision is quite high?
    Why our scientists, after all the analyzed for many decades, didn't even consider to analyze this KEY issue?
    Sorry, but the Density_wave_theory might be good for Saturn Ring, but quite disaster for our galaxy.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    It's exactly analogous to a ball thrown between two people - it travels horizontally at a constant speed, and in the vertical direction it stops and comes back again.
    Grant Hutchison
    Let me focus on your analogous for a ball thrown.
    Let's assume that it is a basket ball which the players have to throw up (directly up).
    However, the players are not allowed to look up and try to escape as it comes back.
    So the question is: what is the chance that the ball will fall directly on one of the players?

    In the same token:
    Based on our current Theory, what is the chance that the sun will fall directly on a nearby star?
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-07 at 08:55 PM.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Please focus on Animation 3:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ation_wave.ogv
    "Orbits predicted by the density wave theory allow the existence of stable spiral arms. Stars move in and out of the spiral arms as they orbit the galaxy."

    What do you see?
    Don't you see that the stars are moving in all directions, in and out up and down?
    I see surprisingly well-ordered movement, with stars in close proximity moving in approximately the same direction. We wouldn't see a spiral structure if the movement were as chaotic as you suggest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Based on that Density_wave_theory what is the chance for collisions between the stars?
    Is it 1%, 10% or 50%?
    I'd say extremely small, by virtue of the parallel streaming I'm seeing. You know that animation isn't to scale, don't you?

    It's up to you to offer some support for your estimates.

    Grant Hutchison

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Let me focus on your analogous for a ball thrown.
    Let's assume that it is a basket ball which the players have to throw up (directly up).
    However, the players are not allowed to look up and try to escape as it comes back.
    So the question is: what is the chance that the ball will fall directly on one of the players?

    In the same token:
    Based on our current Theory, what is the chance that the sun will fall directly on a nearby star?
    Another hopelessly uninformative analogy, since no-one is standing under the sun waiting for it to fall.

    But let's get back to the problem. Direct question: In your view, does the sun move up and down through the galactic plane?

    Grant Hutchison

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Direct question: In your view, does the sun move up and down through the galactic plane?

    Grant Hutchison
    Sure!
    But it orbits up and down.
    As long as the Trojan point is located on the galactic plane, we are O.K.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-07 at 09:08 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •