Thread: Star drifting in disc shape system

There is a clear indication that in a disc shape systems the orbit star is drifting outwards from the hosting object.
For Example:
The Earth is drifting outwards from the Sun.
The moon is drifting outwards from the Earth.
Therefore, we can assume that all the planets in the solar system are drifting away from the Sun.

Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

There is a clear indication that in a disc shape systems the orbit star is drifting outwards from the hosting object.
For Example:
The Earth is drifting outwards from the Sun.
The moon is drifting outwards from the Earth.
Therefore, we can assume that all the planets in the solar system are drifting away from the Sun.

Do you agree?

Not all of the planets are. It's not about agreement, here- but measurement.

However, you are correct about the Earth drifting away from the Sun. Just as the Moon is drifting away from the Earth. Which raises the question as to why these objects drift.
The most likely reason is because of conservation of angular momentum. As the Moon orbits the Earth, the tidal interaction transfers some of Earths rotational energy to the Moon. So the Earths spin is decreased ever so slightly as the Moons orbital distance increases ever so slightly. The applies to the Earth and Sun system and shows why not all planets would drift outward from their host star.

Rotational energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Not all of the planets are. It's not about agreement, here- but measurement.

Why?
Why do you claim that not all the planets are drifting outwards?
Which planets in your opinion are drifting inwards?
Is there any clear evidence that even one planet is drifting inwards?
Based on your reply, let's assume that Venus is drifting inwards.
Hence, 4.5 Billion years ago, it was quite closer to the Earth.
Never the less, as the Earth is drifting outwards, than by that time, the Earth was quite closer to Venus. Hence, there is a possibility that both planets could be exactly at the same orbit distance from the Sun.
This of course is absolutely not acceptable.
Therefore, as the Earth is drifting outwards, than Venus must drift outwards.
This same logical concept is applicable to all the solar planets.
Therefore, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Even Neptune – all planets must drift outwards!!!

The earth is drifting slowly outward because the tides transfer gravitational energy from the moon to the earth. No other planet has a large enough moon to have the same effect. So the earth is the only one moving outward. No other planets are drifting inward or outward.

Your conclusion regarding Venus is thus wrong. Your logic is faulty, no other planets drift outward because no other planets have a large enough moon.

Your next leap of faulty logic will be to say that since the planets are moving outward (which they are not), then the stars in the galaxy must be drifting outward, which they are not.

From there, you will state that since the stars are drifting outward, new matter is being created in the center of the galaxy (they are not and it is not).

You've tried this crackpot idea, using the same faulty thinking before, David Levy.

I was not aware that this is a sock puppet. But good answer in your post, AlexG.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Why?
Why do you claim that not all the planets are drifting outwards?

This has been answered.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Which planets in your opinion are drifting inwards?

This is not about opinion, but measurement. You may as well have asked my opinion about one joule being bigger than another joule.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Hence, 4.5 Billion years ago, it was quite closer to the Earth.
Never the less, as the Earth is drifting outwards, than by that time, the Earth was quite closer to Venus. Hence, there is a possibility that both planets could be exactly at the same orbit distance from the Sun.
This of course is absolutely not acceptable.
Therefore, as the Earth is drifting outwards, than Venus must drift outwards.
This same logical concept is applicable to all the solar planets.
Therefore, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Even Neptune – all planets must drift outwards!!!

You clearly have not researched the evolution and formation of solar systems, at all.

We are not philosophers of the school of Anaximander or of Socrates, who believed all people were born with all knowledge and they only needed to rediscover it.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Therefore, we can assume that all the planets in the solar system are drifting away from the Sun.

Citation required.

Do you agree?

No: Stability of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Hence, there is a possibility that both planets could be exactly at the same orbit distance from the Sun.

Are you suggesting that orbits cannot cross each other? That might be true if they ran in tracks on a giant disk but, suprisingly enough, the solar system is three dimensional.

And it is obviously possible for planet's orbits to overlap because it happens: Pluto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is not about opinion, but measurement.

Which kind of measurement? Do you know about any measurement which proves that the Planets do not drift outwards?

Originally Posted by AlexG

No other planets are drifting inward or outward.

Once again, on which kind of measurements do you base this statement???

I assume that the science estimate that the plants shouldn't drift outwards due to the following statement:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You clearly have not researched the evolution and formation of solar systems, at all.

If all the planets drift outwards, than it might have a negative impact on some of the current theories.
Please try to base your reply on measurements...

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Please try to base your reply on measurements...

So where are the measurements showing all the planets are drifting outwards?

Thanks Strange

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Do you agree?

No: Stability of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually the following statement at Wiki is critical:


"the Solar System is stated to be chaotic,[1] and even the most precise long-term models for the orbital motion of the Solar System are not valid over more than a few tens of millions of years".]

That proves that the following statement is incorrect:

Originally Posted by AlexG

No other planets are drifting inward or outward.

Therefore, we must base our statements on measurements!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Therefore, we must base our statements on measurements!!!

So where are the measurements showing all the planets are drifting outwards?

I assume you are not using the argument "there are no measurements proving me wrong therefore I win" - that would be just silly.

Here's a couple of lists of the orbital elements of the planets. the first is for the time period of 1800-2050 AD:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt

The item of note is the first column which is the Semi-major axis. the second number for each planet is the rate. Note that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto (yes, I know, Pluto is no longer considered a planet) all have negative values, meaning that they are getting nearer to the Sun not further.

The second one:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt

Shows the same elements for the period of 3000 BC=3000AD

you now can add Venus and the Earth to the list , while Pluto drops off.

The truth is that there are a great number of interactions that determine whether a particular planet is receding or not at any given time, and there is no one simple answer.

Originally Posted by Janus

Here's a couple of lists of the orbital elements of the planets...
you now can add Venus and the Earth to the list , while Pluto drops off.

The truth is that there are a great number of interactions that determine whether a particular planet is receding or not at any given time, and there is no one simple answer.

So, does it give an indication that also Venus is drifting outwards???
What about the other planets?

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by Janus

Here's a couple of lists of the orbital elements of the planets...
you now can add Venus and the Earth to the list , while Pluto drops off.

The truth is that there are a great number of interactions that determine whether a particular planet is receding or not at any given time, and there is no one simple answer.

So, does it give an indication that also Venus is drifting outwards???

Look at the links. Over the Short term (1800-2050 AD) it drifts outward, over the long term (3000BC-3000AD) it has a net inward drift.
What about the other planets?

off-on topic?

Picture our gallaxy as a 12 hr analog clock.
The galaxy is moving in direction 12.
It takes us about 225-230 million years to orbit the galactic center.
We are now near position 9.
When we are at position 12 the galactic center is moving towards us, reducing the distance between nearby solar systems.
Gravity is increasing until 12 where it is at it's maximun
---Then would the planets be moving in toward the sun with the increase in gravity?
ok?
as we round 12 and head for 3, gravity will diminish and nearby solar systems move farther apart(thinning our galactic arm?)
------so too will the planets increase their orbital distance from the sun?
untill we reach 6 on our galactic analog clock where the galactic center will be moving farther ahead of(away from) us toward 12, and we will be at the lowest point in gravitational forces. with our arm almost fully extended, and planets moving outward?
Then, back to 9
.......................
meanwhile, we are bobbing(oscillating) up and down through our spiral arm approximately every 92.5(some say 26) million years(as compared to the galactic plane)
so
when we are in the center of our spiral arm, gravity increases?
and as we reach the limits of our oscillations, gravity would diminish?

From the above
would the planets orbits shrink and grow in rhythm with our motions around the galaxy and oscillations within our galactic arm?

The galaxy is moving in direction 12.
It takes us about 225-230 million years to orbit the galactic center.
We are now near position 9.
When we are at position 12 the galaxy is moving towards us, reducing the distance between nearby solar systems.

No. The solar system does not move independently of the galaxy. The galaxy is moving in the direction of Virgo, and the solar system, regardless of it's relative position within the galaxy shares the overall movement of the galaxy. Gravity doesn't change with position, and the orbital position of the planets does not change with the position of the system within the galaxy.

Alex:
It seems that you think you know what I wrote, but do not understand what I meant.

Our motion is intended to be referenced to/from the galactic center, and the galactic plane.

As we orbit the galactic center, we do indeed move up and down(if you will) through our galactic arm, and closer to and farther away from the galactic center.

We are now near position 9.
When we are at position 12 the galaxy is moving towards us, reducing the distance between nearby solar systems.

This seems to be saying that our motion within the galaxy is independent of the galaxies overall motion.

no
not independent
we are orbiting the galactic center within the orion spiral arm
while the whole galaxy, us included, is moving through space in the direction of direction 12 relative to the galactic center.
Our arm is rotating(orbiting) toward position 12------(the bow, if you will, of the galactic boat)(or the leading edge of the galactic frisbe)
we should be at position 12 within 50-60 million years
where gravity will/should be the greatest(for us)
as the distance between us and nearby solar systems will be at a minimum
The/our whole spiral arm will, at that time/position be compressed toward the galactic center, increasing gravity.

the question was/is how will that effect the orbital positions of our sun's planets/satelites
logic dictates that the positions of the planets,etc... under increased gravity will then move closer to our solar system's center.

logic, however, is invariably an extrapolation from known data----------ergo the uncertainty, ergo the question

where gravity will/should be the greatest(for us)

I don't see how you make this assumption.

logic dictates that the positions of the planets,etc... under increased gravity will then move closer to our solar system's center.

Ah, logic. Under increased gravity from what direction? Why would this have any effect on the solar systems gravitational balance? The sun would not have any increased gravitational force, why would planets move towards the sun?

With Regards to gravitational energy transfer at Spiral Galaxy.

Let's assume that we agree with the following statement:

Originally Posted by AlexG

The earth is drifting slowly outward because the tides transfer gravitational energy from the moon to the earth.

Now, let's see how it might affect the star migration in a spiral galaxy;
As we all know, spiral arm represents a long chain of stars. There must be some kind of gravitational power between the stars in this arm.
Therefore, there is some sort of gravitational energy transfer in the spiral arm.
Hence, a massive star in a spiral arm is drifting slowly outwards because the tides transfer gravitational energy from other massive star which is located relativly close to it but at the far side of the spiral arm.
Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

located relativly close to it but at the far side of the spiral arm.

How does that work?
Surely "at the far side" is about as far away from "relatively close" as you can get.

Do you agree?

Not at all.

Gravitation decreases with the square of the distance. The average distance between stars in the Milky Way is on the order of 5 to 10 lys. At that distance there is virtually no tidal effect, indeed, there is virtually no gravitational effects between stars. There is no 'chain of gravity'. In fact, the stars in the spiral arms are held in place by the halo of dark matter the which permeates the galaxy.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Gravitation decreases with the square of the distance.

And tidal forces decrease with the cube of distance.

(Given Dave Lee's detailed mathematical analysis of his scenario he is obviously cognisant of both these facts. Or ...)

And before he says, "ah, but there will still be some interaction therefore I'm right" ... this is not a simple 2-body problem; it cannot even be approximated by a simple 2-body problem (as the Earth and moon can) so random, uninformed guesses about the behaviour of stars in the galaxy are of zero value. The only way to know what will happen is to run a highly accurate simulation (requiring a lot of supercomputer time).

And guess what, Dave Lee, professionals have done this. Please post the results of this work that support your claims.

There are lots of real physics. and real observations that can come into play here.
Some act in one direction, others the opposite.

1: Star loose mass as they burn fuel, and expel gas.
So their gravity weakens over time, thus making planets move out.

2: Almost all stars spin faster than the planets orbiting them.
So tidal forces push planets away from them, while slowing the star's spin.

3: Gas giants / brown dwarfs shrink as they cool, increasing their spin rate.
When Jupiter first formed it was probably too puffed up and spinning too slowly for anything to it orbit for long, without being dragged in.

4: Galaxies grow by eating gas and smaller galaxies. The new stars are not formed around the edges. Therefore the older stars must be moving outwards as the galaxies grow.

5: In general, relativity obital systems lose energy in the form of gravitational waves.
This makes everything fall inwards.

6: Tidal forces on objects in excenertric obits almost always drain energy from the system, due to deformation as the objects approach each other.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Gravitation decreases with the square of the distance. The average distance between stars in the Milky Way is on the order of 5 to 10 lys. At that distance there is virtually no tidal effect, indeed, there is virtually no gravitational effects between stars. There is no 'chain of gravity'.

Let's make a brief calculation- Most of the 400 Billion stars in the Milky way are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70 Billion stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 70,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are about 1 Million stars in a segment of 1000 x 1000 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!!

Originally Posted by AlexG

In fact, the stars in the spiral arms are held in place by the halo of dark matter the which permeates the galaxy.

This is absolutely wrong!!! There is no need for Dark matter to hold the shape of the spiral galaxy. The gravity is already built in by the shape of the spiral arm. Without the gravitational chain power in those arms, there will be no spiral Arm!!! The dark matter by itself can't generate any spiral arm!

Anyone care to address the galaxy rotation problem without postulating the existance of "dark matter"?

Some days, it seems that classical physics falls short in the micro(quantum) and macro(galactic) and the need for an unknown unproven addition of extra mass, or forces is needed to bolster the classical.
Is it time to toss out keplers laws and start over?
Are there other speculations, other possible ways to reconcile the paradox?
(without the use of the 'F' factor)

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by AlexG

Gravitation decreases with the square of the distance. The average distance between stars in the Milky Way is on the order of 5 to 10 lys. At that distance there is virtually no tidal effect, indeed, there is virtually no gravitational effects between stars. There is no 'chain of gravity'.

Let's make a brief calculation- Most of the 400 Billion stars in the Milky way are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70 Billion stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 70,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are about 1 Million stars in a segment of 1000 x 1000 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!!

Originally Posted by AlexG

In fact, the stars in the spiral arms are held in place by the halo of dark matter the which permeates the galaxy.

This is absolutely wrong!!! There is no need for Dark matter to hold the shape of the spiral galaxy. The gravity is already built in by the shape of the spiral arm. Without the gravitational chain power in those arms, there will be no spiral Arm!!! The dark matter by itself can't generate any spiral arm!

I don't understand this argument at all.
I am not a fan of dark matter but this idea just does not work.

If you complete your argument beyond just quoting large numbers, you see that each star in your chain has nearly equal numbers of stars eachside of it.
(except for the ends of the chain)
If you have a million star pulling one way and a million pulling the other, the net result is zero.
It provides no force on any star in the chain, so you still need dark matter, or an even stranger altnerative.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

This is absolutely wrong!!! There is no need for Dark matter to hold the shape of the spiral galaxy.

As the mass of dark matter in the galaxy affects the orbital velocity of the stars, I would like to see a mathematical proof of this unlikely sounding claim.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Anyone care to address the galaxy rotation problem without postulating the existance of "dark matter"?

Some days, it seems that classical physics falls short in the micro(quantum) and macro and the need for an unknown unproven addition of extra mass, or forces is needed to bolster the classical.
Is it time to toss out keplers laws and start over?
Are there other speculations, other possible ways to reconcile the paradox?

I prefer alternative cosmologies, that expect galaxies to be rapidly growing and then spilt apart to form new spirals.

My second favourate is, there being hundreds of differents types of dark matter, just like there are hundered of different types of atom.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Anyone care to address the galaxy rotation problem without postulating the existance of "dark matter"?

Well, it could be a modification to the currently known mathematics of gravity, such as MOND or one of the relativistic equivalents. As far as I know, none of these are able to explain all the observations without being specially tweaked for each case (different galaxies, galaxies vs. galaxy clusters). Why would the laws of gravity be different in different places?

The best fit I have seen (a long time ago, I wouldn't be able to find it again) using something like MOND concluded it would still need some (lesser) amount of dark matter to resolve that.

Plus, there are many other problems that can be resolved by the presence of dark matter, even though it raises other questions. Ain't science fun.

Are there other speculations, other possible ways to reconcile the paradox?

A great many. I'm not really familiar with them, though. There are even some that try to explain dark matter and dark energy via the same mechanism.

[QUOTE=Strange;444207] .... Ain't science fun. ... [QUOTE]

fersure dadio

ergo, my presence here

Originally Posted by PetTastic

If you have a million star pulling one way and a million pulling the other, the net result is zero.
It provides no force on any star in the chain, so you still need dark matter, or an even stranger altnerative.

No!
Let me explain:
It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the elastic cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.
The axis in this example is the rotational supper massive black hole, the balls are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power. If for example you have 10 balls pulling in the direction of the axis and 10 balls pushing to the other way, the net result is not zero. Actually, if the spin velocity will be high enough, the Elastic core (Gravity) will be torn. That exactly the situation at the far end of the spiral arm of the Milky way galaxy. We see stars which are disconnected from the spiral galaxy at that far end.
Please note that all the stars in spiral galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. Billion over Billion in only one direction. This is also a key element in Spiral Galaxy which shows the power of the gravity. In the solar system – for example, some of the planets turns on the opposite way from the Earth orbit cycle. Therefore, the gravity power in the solar system between the planets is virtually neglected.
Never the less, In spiral galaxy – the gravity between the stars is THE key element!! This is also the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus.
Therefore, spiral galaxy can sustain it shape without any need for extra power like dark matter!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Originally Posted by PetTastic

If you have a million star pulling one way and a million pulling the other, the net result is zero.
It provides no force on any star in the chain, so you still need dark matter, or an even stranger altnerative.

No!
Let me explain:
It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the elastic cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.
The axis in this example is the rotational supper massive black hole, the balls are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power. If for example you have 10 balls pulling in the direction of the axis and 10 balls pushing to the other way, the net result is not zero. Actually, if the spin velocity will be high enough, the Elastic core (Gravity) will be torn. That exactly the situation at the far end of the spiral arm of the Milky way galaxy. We see stars which are disconnected from the spiral galaxy at that far end.
Please note that all the stars in spiral galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. Billion over Billion in only one direction. This is also a key element in Spiral Galaxy which shows the power of the gravity. In the solar system – for example, some of the planets turns on the opposite way from the Earth orbit cycle. Therefore, the gravity power in the solar system between the planets is virtually neglected.
Never the less, In spiral galaxy – the gravity between the stars is THE key element!! This is also the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus.
Therefore, spiral galaxy can sustain it shape without any need for extra power like dark matter!!!

No! No! No!

Please note that stars connected by elastic cord would experience an increased restoring force with distance.
Gravidity decreases with distance.

I would love to believe your idea, because I hate the idea of dark matter and MOND, etc.
But it does not work, local gravity between stars has a negligible effect, unless you abandon general relativity, and Newton's laws.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

With Regards to gravitational energy transfer at Spiral Galaxy.

Let's assume that we agree with the following statement:

Originally Posted by AlexG

The earth is drifting slowly outward because the tides transfer gravitational energy from the moon to the earth.

No, the Earth-Moon tidal interaction causes the Moon to recede from the Earth; it has no effect on the Earth-Sun distance. The Earth-Sun distance varies in part due to perturbations caused by the other planets, which can at times cause it to increase at at time decrease. Any general tendency for the Earth to recede is caused by the fact that the Sun, in fusing Hydrogen to Helium, sheds mass.

Now, let's see how it might affect the star migration in a spiral galaxy;
As we all know, spiral arm represents a long chain of stars. There must be some kind of gravitational power between the stars in this arm.

Spiral arms are not long chains of stars in that they represent some type of interconnected structure. The spiral arms are regions of increased star creation that travel independently of the stars within them. They are like waves traveling through the Galaxy. They are bright because they contain a larger fraction of young bright stars, not because they contain a significantly larger amount of mass.

Therefore, there is some sort of gravitational energy transfer in the spiral arm.
Hence, a massive star in a spiral arm is drifting slowly outwards because the tides transfer gravitational energy from other massive star which is located relativly close to it but at the far side of the spiral arm.
Do you agree?

For tidal interaction to cause an outward drift, the interaction needs to be between the drifting object and the central mass that it orbits. There are two factors that prevent this from happening on the galactic scale.

Tidal acceleration occurs because the orbiting body raises tidal bulges on the body it orbits. Friction between this these bulges and the orbited body keeps them from aligning with the orbiting body. The gravitational pull between bulge and orbiting body is no longer straight "down" and now has a component along the trajectory of the body. In the case of the Earth, the bulge is pulled to a position ~3 degrees ahead of the Moon. This creates a forward pull on the Moon that lifts it into a higher orbit.

A galaxy isn't a solid or even fluid body it is a loose gravitational bound system. If you had a single body orbiting it, it could raise "tidal bulges" in its structure, but, because of the loose structure of the galaxy, there would be no means of creating the friction needed to cause the bulge to shift with respect to the orbiting body. Without that shift, there is no tidal acceleration.

Secondly, we aren't talking about a single orbiting body, but all the bodies in the disk of the galaxy. They are evenly distributed around the central mass. Each tries to raise its own tidal bulge on the central mass, but since they are all acting in different directions, they cancel each other out. You end up with no singular bulge that can gravitationally interact with the orbiting bodies, pulling them forward.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

The axis in this example is the rotational supper massive black hole, the balls are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power. If for example you have 10 balls pulling in the direction of the axis and 10 balls pushing to the other way, the net result is not zero.

Why not?

Actually, if the spin velocity will be high enough, the Elastic core (Gravity) will be torn.

You can't "tear" gravity.
It always acts, over an infinite distance.

Originally Posted by PetTastic

Please note that stars connected by elastic cord would experience an increased restoring force with distance.
Gravidity decreases with distance..

Yes, this is absolutely correct.
Never the less, Please be aware that all the stars in the arm drift outwards without any significant change in the distance between the stars in the arm.
Therefore, there is no change in the gravity force between the stars as the whole arm drifts outwards.
The real change is taking care in the center.
It works in the following way:
A. Creation of a new Hydrogen Atom - a new mass is created around the galactic nucleus of spiral galaxy. Nucleus serves as the accelerating (or generator) that creates new material. In the near distance to the nucleus, there are probably tremendous forces and electric fields with huge energy. This creates thin layers of Hydrogen atoms. Those atoms are moving at nearly the speed of light.
B. Creation of wide range of Atoms and molecular: at this high speed there is a chance for collision between those new born Hydrogen Atoms. Also, due to the high pressure, temperature and electric/magnetic fields a nuclear fusion activity will set heavier atoms. (Eg, nuclear fusion between two atoms of hydrogen will generate helium). In this way all the atoms which are known have been created. Due to the high electric field, there is a wide range of intermolecular links. Therefore, all the following molecules are formed: water, carbon dioxide, silicates, and more. Over time, those atoms and moleculars crystallize into blocks and gradually migrate outwards from the bar shape.
C. Star Birth – by wiki " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
Hence, Those blocks crystallize and form hot mass balls. Each ball absorbs additional mass and increases its size- similar to a snowball. As long as the ball is in the creation mass zone, it will get more mass and increase its size. Gradually, a hot new star will appear. If it's a high-mass star then it will keep all the light gases (due to gravity) and become a giant gas star. If the mass is significantly larger there is a chance for a nuclear burning activity than it might become a sun star. But when it is relatively small, than the gases might emitted into space and therefore, it becomes a rocky planet like Earth and Mars.

D. New star locked by interior side of spiral arm –The newborn star migrates outwards from the galactic nucleus. The Electric fields and forces in the nucleus of the galaxy form the shape of the famous BAR which is visible in most of the spiral galaxy. The star on the edge of the BAR continues with its outwards migration and starts penetrating to the gravitational forces of the interior side of the spiral arms. Therefore, It reduces its velocity and continue to rotate till it finely locked by the gravitational power of one of the spiral arm. It's similar to roulette ball bouncing between the cells numbers until it lost the speed and finally set in one of the cells.
Therefore, the arm is drifting outwards, while new stars are getting in from the center!!!
This fully meets Newton's laws!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

Gradually, a hot new star will appear. If it's a high-mass star then it will keep all the light gases (due to gravity) and become a giant gas star. If the mass is significantly larger there is a chance for a nuclear burning activity than it might become a sun star.

Uh, WTF is a "sun star" and how does it differ from a "non-sun" star?

But when it is relatively small, than the gases might emitted into space and therefore, it becomes a rocky planet like Earth and Mars.

I.e. NOT a star.

Originally Posted by Dave Lee

It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other.

That is a terrible model. The force would increase linearly with distance whereas gravity decreases with the square of distance.

And when you say "it can be simulated" I assume you mean "I think". But your mental model is totally wrong which is presumably why ypu come to such erroneous conclusions.

Note that people do real simulation using the actual effects of gravity (not elastic cords).

In one side the elastic cord is connected to a spinning axis.

There is no "spinning axis" to connect a cord to.

Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.

It would be if there were cords and if there were a spinning axis. However, this bears no relation at all to reality.

The axis in this example is the rotational supper massive black hole, the balls are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power.

The black hole has a minuscule effect on the motion of most stars in the galaxy. The fact it spins is completely irrelevant (until you get very close).

If for example you have 10 balls pulling in the direction of the axis and 10 balls pushing to the other way, the net result is not zero.

Of course it is. If you disagree, please provide a mathematical proof.

Actually, if the spin velocity will be high enough, the Elastic core (Gravity) will be torn.

Nonsense. You can't "tear" gravity.

Therefore, spiral galaxy can sustain it shape without any need for extra power like dark matter!!!

Please provide a mathematical proof of this claim.

Note that people who actually understand gravity appear to disagree with you. Why do you think that is?

Never the less, Please be aware that all the stars in the arm drift outwards without any significant change in the distance between the stars in the arm.

This is the central thesis of your idea, which you repeat over and over without ever giving any support or evidence. Just your insistence.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Never the less, Please be aware that all the stars in the arm drift outwards without any significant change in the distance between the stars in the arm.

This is the central thesis of your idea, which you repeat over and over without ever giving any support or evidence. Just your insistence.

O.K.
In order to find an evidence, let's look at the Milky Way arms.
We can see that the Orion Arm (a place for the solar system) is not a spiral arm. How come???
The answer is quite simple:
Long time ago, it was a spiral arm.
As I have already stated - The whole arm is drifting outwards, while new stars are getting in from the center!!!
Unfortunately, for the Orion Arm, due to some bad luck, (remember the ball in the roulette), new stars didn't get in on time. The other Arms were luckier and succeeded to hold the new born stars in their arms.
Therefore, as there was sever lack of new stars at the center, the Gravitational power of the Orion arm had been decreased dramatically.
As Orion Arm continues to drift outwards without getting new stars in the center, it had been eventually disconnected from the center and drifts away.
Luckily for us, the Orion arm had been captured by gravitational power between Sagittarius Arm and Perseus Arm.
That shows that the whole arm drifts outwards and might even disconnect from the center of the galaxy.

?
If the rotational velocity of the galactic center was faster than that of the stars in the arms it is assumed that the arms would collapse into the center?

As this is not the case, is stasis possible?

Not in Trash yet?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

"5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction"

Source: Crackpot index

David Levy, aka Dave Lee has already run himself right off the crackpot index.

He get's himself banned and just moves on to another site, repeating his same crank theory. Eventually, he throws a hissy fit and get's himself kicked off, only to repeat it somewhere else.

as in:
"good morning department of redundancy department, good morning, may I help you?"
?

3 points for consistency?