# Thread: Central Star of the Milky Way (Sagitarius "A")

1. According to the latest estimates the central star of the Milky way (Sagittarius A) has a mass of approximately 4.3 million solar masses. Which equals 8.57x1036kg. Therefore the physical characteristics of Sagittarius A, are as follow;

Mass = 8.57x1036kg.
Mass density = 8.0x106kg./m3.
Fo (orbital force) = c/s1.
Fc (centripetal force) = 1.418x107m/s2.

Sagittarius A is the remnant of the "Proto Star" from which the Milky Way became formed.

2.

3. How have you calculated the radius? I don't get the same number. Observationally the object appears to have a diameter an order of magnitude greater. How do you account for that discrepancy?

Are you assuming rotation or non-rotation of the body? If rotation, what rotational velocity?

What is your definition of orbital force?

Your units of centripetal force do not make any sense. Would you care to correct or explain?

4. Originally Posted by divinum1
Sagittarius A is the remnant of the "Proto Star" from which the Milky Way became formed.
This is highly unlikely.
Galaxies either form from the merger of many smaller galaxies or from a colapsing gas cloud.

As some quite large galaxies show little signes of a central super massive blackhole (NGC 598), ours could have come from any of the original galaxies.

If the galaxiy formed from a cloud then the best models I have seen, have near zero gravity over large areas at the centre of the cloud giving a moderatly uniform preasure.
However, the clouds cool from the outside inwards making the densest areas most succeptable to collapse around the edges of the core.
Making the formation of one large star at the centre first unlikely.

5. Radius of the mass is always directly proportional to; R = mG/Fo2, or R = Fo2/Fc.
Where Fo is equal to c/s.

6. Sgr A* is NOT a star, it's a supermassive black hole, so your topic title is wrong.

7. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Sgr A* is NOT a star, it's a supermassive black hole, so your topic title is wrong.
Regardless of what it is, it has a mass of 8.57x10^36 kg. And its gravitational forces are relative to it, and so is the radius.

8. Divinum, you really have to stop posting this stuff on the science threads. Since this is your own theory, and outside of mainstream astronomy, it has to go in New Hypothesis (to be charitable about it). So this is an official notice.

9. [QUOTE=John Galt;294659]How have you calculated the radius? I don't get the same number. Observationally the object appears to have a diameter an order of magnitude greater. How do you account for that discrepancy?

Are you assuming rotation or non-rotation of the body? If rotation, what rotational velocity?

What is your definition of orbital force?

My opinion too John Galt, lets explore facts and figures and not surmise.
Divinium seems oblivious to the forces that create galaxies.
nokton.

10. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Divinum, you really have to stop posting this stuff on the science threads. Since this is your own theory, and outside of mainstream astronomy, it has to go in New Hypothesis (to be charitable about it). So this is an official notice.
Agree with you Harold, but with respect, this is an open science forum, and such posts to be expected.
Feel we must deal with them in a rational way. By that i mean by logical discourse.
Or how do we portray ourselves? As members of a clique that regects any other concept
not our own?
Harold, Divinum is wrong, but please, lets point out the error he makes by scientific
discourse. Not threats. I know your answer before you post it Harold.
nokton.

11. Originally Posted by divinum1
According to the latest estimates the central star of the Milky way (Sagittarius A) has a mass of approximately 4.3 million solar masses. Which equals 8.57x1036kg. Therefore the physical characteristics of Sagittarius A, are as follow;

Mass = 8.57x1036kg.
Mass density = 8.0x106kg./m3.
Fo (orbital force) = c/s1.
Fc (centripetal force) = 1.418x107m/s2.

Sagittarius A is the remnant of the "Proto Star" from which the Milky Way became formed.
Originally Posted by divinum1
Radius of the mass is always directly proportional to; R = mG/Fo2, or R = Fo2/Fc.
Where Fo is equal to c/s.
what orbit?
an orbit around Sagittarius A?
what is the radius of this orbit?

what centripetal force?
the centripetal force felt by a body in orbit around Sagittarius A?

Centripetal force (from Latin centrum "center" and petere "to seek"[1]) is a force that makes a body follow a curved path: it is always directed orthogonal to the velocity of the body, toward the instantaneous center of curvature of the path

The magnitude of the centripetal force on an object of mass m moving at a speed v along a path with radius of curvature r is:[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#A...orbital_motion

12. Originally Posted by granpa
Originally Posted by divinum1
According to the latest estimates the central star of the Milky way (Sagittarius A) has a mass of approximately 4.3 million solar masses. Which equals 8.57x1036kg. Therefore the physical characteristics of Sagittarius A, are as follow;

Mass = 8.57x1036kg.
Mass density = 8.0x106kg./m3.
Fo (orbital force) = c/s1.
Fc (centripetal force) = 1.418x107m/s2.

Sagittarius A is the remnant of the "Proto Star" from which the Milky Way became formed.
Originally Posted by divinum1
Radius of the mass is always directly proportional to; R = mG/Fo2, or R = Fo2/Fc.
Where Fo is equal to c/s.
what orbit?
an orbit around Sagittarius A?
what is the radius of this orbit?

what centripetal force?
the centripetal force felt by a body in orbit around Sagittarius A.

Centripetal force (from Latin centrum "center" and petere "to seek"[1]) is a force that makes a body follow a curved path: it is always directed orthogonal to the velocity of the body, toward the instantaneous center of curvature of the path

The magnitude of the centripetal force on an object of mass m moving at a speed v along a path with radius of curvature r is:[5]

Orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An orbit of a mass-body around Sagittarius A depend on the average distance from the center of SA. And the force that causes these masses to orbit about SA is its Fo (orbital force) whose velocity is equal to light speed per second at the surface of SA, but it attenuates by a square root of its distance. If any of those bodies would be subject to Fc (centripetal force) they would be directed toward the center of SA, and they would fall on to it. Centripetal force is just a secondary force of gravity, which always lags far behind orbital force. For example; Sun's Fo = 436,203 m/s, while its Fc =273.6 m/s2, which a difference of 1,594 times. Even at its terminal velocity the Fc does not reach up to Fo. Therefore, it is the stronger force that dictates conditions within its system. And by not taking this Fo into consideration many aspects of the universe are being misconceived. Such as masses of galaxies are being overestimated by approx, 100 times.

13. Originally Posted by divinum1
For example; Sun's Fo = 436,203 m/s, while its Fc =273.6 m/s2, which a difference of 1,594 times.
Does it make sense to call both these quantities "force" when they have different units (ms-1 versus ms-2)? In fact it seems that one is a velocity and one is an acceleration...

14. Sun's Fo = 436,203 m/s?

an object orbitting the sun at its surface would have a velocity of
escape velocity / sqrt[2] = 436666 m/s

15. wolfram alpha gives the gravity of the sun as

273.95 m/s^2 (meters per second squared)

which of course is equal to the centripetal force felt by an object in orbit just above the surface of the sun

16. you should be comparing centripetal force to the force of gravity at that radius rather than
comparing it to the orbital velocity

17. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by divinum1
For example; Sun's Fo = 436,203 m/s, while its Fc =273.6 m/s2, which a difference of 1,594 times.
Does it make sense to call both these quantities "force" when they have different units (ms-1 versus ms-2)? In fact it seems that one is a velocity and one is an acceleration...
The Fo is constant at specific distance, and is therefore = to m/s, hence its velocity is constant at constant distance, but if the distance changes so does the velocity. While the Fc is subject to m/s/s, but it reaches its terminal velocity, hence it does not increase for indefinitely. So the state of the two forces is different in characteristic, Fo is circular in form, while Fc is centripetal in form. Furthermore Fo is all "unified" in its direction of action, while Fc is an all divisional in direction of its actions, for this reason, the Fo is always stronger-faster than Fc. And therefore it dictates the conditions within its system, this force (Fo) may be considered as being the prime mover of the universe, since all heavenly bodies are moving around in accordance of its magnitude.

18. Originally Posted by granpa
Sun's Fo = 436,203 m/s?

an object orbitting the sun at its surface would have a velocity of
escape velocity / sqrt[2] = 436666 m/s
Yes, equal to Sun's Fo, and above.

19. Originally Posted by granpa
you should be comparing centripetal force to the force of gravity at that radius rather than
comparing it to the orbital velocity
At the surface yes, and even above the surface if the object is not in motion relative to the orbital force. For this reason, an object can be bound to one force only, either Fo, or Fc, but not to both at the same time. And the object that is bound to Fc will fall to the surface of the mass, because Fo has no effect perpendicular to its action. And vice versa is true about objects that are bound to Fo. Hence each force acts independent of the other, and yet none of them can exist without the other, because a force to act as a force, it has to have a base upon which to act. And since they coexist in full cooperation with one another, thus each force is using the other force as a base of its action. And this is why gravitation has two forces; kapish!

20. a velocity is not a force.

velocity and force are 2 different things

the velocity of an orbiting object does produce an centrifugal force which is equal and opposite to the centripetal force.

maybe that is what you were thinking

21. Centrifugal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") represents the effects of inertia that arise in connection with rotation and which are experienced as an outward force away from the center of rotation.

outward force that is proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation and to the square of the rate of rotation (angular velocity) of the frame

A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the reactive centrifugal force. It is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration

22. Originally Posted by granpa
Centrifugal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") represents the effects of inertia that arise in connection with rotation and which are experienced as an outward force away from the center of rotation.

outward force that is proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation and to the square of the rate of rotation (angular velocity) of the frame

A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the reactive centrifugal force. It is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration
No, a mass that is bound to a circular motion is provided by orbital force, not centripetal force, because an object in space can only be bound to one force at the time, either orbital or centripetal. If such an object is bound to centripetal force, it comes down to earth. Whereas, when an object is bound to orbital force it stays-moves with it. To think that centripetal force is providing the effect to cause an orbit to be circular, is incorrect. Because the two gravitational forces do not act opposite to one another, but rather directly perpendicular to one another, at 90 degrees that is, which is not opposite. For this reason, whatever one force does the other force has no effect on its action, and vice versa. Therefore, each force acts independent of the other, and this is obvious when you look at heavenly bodies, because they are spherical in form due to centripetal force, where orbital force has no effect on its action. And the same is true about the orbital force. Hence, Newton's third law does not apply to gravitational forces.

23. Originally Posted by divinum1
Originally Posted by granpa
Centrifugal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") represents the effects of inertia that arise in connection with rotation and which are experienced as an outward force away from the center of rotation.

outward force that is proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation and to the square of the rate of rotation (angular velocity) of the frame

A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the reactive centrifugal force. It is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration
No, a mass that is bound to a circular motion is provided by orbital force, not centripetal force, because an object in space can only be bound to one force at the time, either orbital or centripetal. If such an object is bound to centripetal force, it comes down to earth. Whereas, when an object is bound to orbital force it stays-moves with it. To think that centripetal force is providing the effect to cause an orbit to be circular, is incorrect. Because the two gravitational forces do not act opposite to one another, but rather directly perpendicular to one another, at 90 degrees that is, which is not opposite. For this reason, whatever one force does the other force has no effect on its action, and vice versa. Therefore, each force acts independent of the other, and this is obvious when you look at heavenly bodies, because they are spherical in form due to centripetal force, where orbital force has no effect on its action. And the same is true about the orbital force. Hence, Newton's third law does not apply to gravitational forces.
So here we go again.
In another thread on this forum ( the one about "Radius of Gravity" ), you are saying that (quote) "(...) one force in nature cannot even exist (...)". Here you are now saying that "(...) an object in space can only be bound to one force at the time (...)".
Enough said.

24. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by divinum1
Originally Posted by granpa
Centrifugal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") represents the effects of inertia that arise in connection with rotation and which are experienced as an outward force away from the center of rotation.

outward force that is proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation and to the square of the rate of rotation (angular velocity) of the frame

A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the reactive centrifugal force. It is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration
No, a mass that is bound to a circular motion is provided by orbital force, not centripetal force, because an object in space can only be bound to one force at the time, either orbital or centripetal. If such an object is bound to centripetal force, it comes down to earth. Whereas, when an object is bound to orbital force it stays-moves with it. To think that centripetal force is providing the effect to cause an orbit to be circular, is incorrect. Because the two gravitational forces do not act opposite to one another, but rather directly perpendicular to one another, at 90 degrees that is, which is not opposite. For this reason, whatever one force does the other force has no effect on its action, and vice versa. Therefore, each force acts independent of the other, and this is obvious when you look at heavenly bodies, because they are spherical in form due to centripetal force, where orbital force has no effect on its action. And the same is true about the orbital force. Hence, Newton's third law does not apply to gravitational forces.
So here we go again.
In another thread on this forum ( the one about "Radius of Gravity" ), you are saying that (quote) "(...) one force in nature cannot even exist (...)". Here you are now saying that "(...) an object in space can only be bound to one force at the time (...)".
Enough said.
Take a very careful look at Newton's first law; Which specifically states, An object continues in a state of rest or in a state of motion, but does not specify the reason as why is an object at rest, or in motion. Which is more than obvious that an object here on earth is at rest due to the g-force acting upon it constantly. And the same apply to an object in motion, specifically to a natural object that is orbiting another body like the Moon for example. I can not even imagine how can anybody believe that an object like Moon is just falling around the Earth at a constant speed without a force acting upon it. Earth's centripetal force acts directly toward the center of its mass, and to say that this is the force that causes the Moon to orbit around the earth, then those who believe that have to reexamine their own intelligence.
Furthermore, as I stated, one force can not even exist, that refers to the forces of nature, which is true. One force can not exist, and it does not exist, because for a force to act as force it must have a base upon which to act. For this reason, all forces of nature are bipolar, and so is gravitational, which is obviously displayed throughout the universe. Now if you want to believe the old fashion way, you just keep doing so. Have a good Day!.

25. I don't need belief because I understand.You have a good day also.

26. Take a very careful look at Newton's first law; Which specifically states, An object continues in a state of rest or in a state of motion, but does not specify the reason as why is an object at rest, or in motion. Which is more than obvious that an object here on earth is at rest due to the g-force acting upon it constantly. And the same apply to an object in motion, specifically to a natural object that is orbiting another body like the Moon for example. I can not even imagine how can anybody believe that an object like Moon is just falling around the Earth at a constant speed without a force acting upon it. Earth's centripetal force acts directly toward the center of its mass, and to say that this is the force that causes the Moon to orbit around the earth, then those who believe that have to reexamine their own intelligence.
Furthermore, as I stated, one force can not even exist, that refers to the forces of nature, which is true. One force can not exist, and it does not exist, because for a force to act as force it must have a base upon which to act. For this reason, all forces of nature are bipolar, and so is gravitational, which is obviously displayed throughout the universe. Now if you want to believe the old fashion way, you just keep doing so.
Gibberish. Starting with any thought that objects on earth are at rest which is utter nonsense...and working towards incomprehensible by the end.

Besides that, what was the point of this thread?

27. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Take a very careful look at Newton's first law; Which specifically states, An object continues in a state of rest or in a state of motion, but does not specify the reason as why is an object at rest, or in motion. Which is more than obvious that an object here on earth is at rest due to the g-force acting upon it constantly. And the same apply to an object in motion, specifically to a natural object that is orbiting another body like the Moon for example. I can not even imagine how can anybody believe that an object like Moon is just falling around the Earth at a constant speed without a force acting upon it. Earth's centripetal force acts directly toward the center of its mass, and to say that this is the force that causes the Moon to orbit around the earth, then those who believe that have to reexamine their own intelligence.
Furthermore, as I stated, one force can not even exist, that refers to the forces of nature, which is true. One force can not exist, and it does not exist, because for a force to act as force it must have a base upon which to act. For this reason, all forces of nature are bipolar, and so is gravitational, which is obviously displayed throughout the universe. Now if you want to believe the old fashion way, you just keep doing so.
Gibberish. Starting with any thought that objects on earth are at rest which is utter nonsense...and working towards incomprehensible by the end.

Besides that, what was the point of this thread?
This tread is about the central star of the milky way, but as you can see it ended up gibberish.

28. When did the subject get changed to tires?

29. Originally Posted by divinum1
This tread is about the central star of the milky way, but as you can see it ended up gibberish.
I thought my points and question in the first response in the thread were germane. You chose to ignore them. I repeat them here in the hope that you are serious about having a meaningful discussion.

How have you calculated the radius? I don't get the same number. Observationally the object appears to have a diameter an order of magnitude greater. How do you account for that discrepancy?

Are you assuming rotation or non-rotation of the body? If rotation, what rotational velocity?

What is your definition of orbital force?

Your units of centripetal force do not make any sense. Would you care to correct or explain?

30. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by divinum1
This tread is about the central star of the milky way, but as you can see it ended up gibberish.
I thought my points and question in the first response in the thread were germane. You chose to ignore them. I repeat them here in the hope that you are serious about having a meaningful discussion.
How have you calculated the radius? I don't get the same number. Observationally the object appears to have a diameter an order of magnitude greater. How do you account for that discrepancy?

Are you assuming rotation or non-rotation of the body? If rotation, what rotational velocity?

What is your definition of orbital force?

Your units of centripetal force do not make any sense. Would you care to correct or explain?
Rotation of that central body is always slower than the force that causes that rotation. But that force (or whatever it should be called?), can not have a greater component than c/s. And since mass, radius, and the two gravitational components are always directly proportional to one another, and vice versa. Which is in accordance of these three equations;
mG/d^2= Fc, & mG/d (square rooted)= ov , and mG/ov^2= r, or, mG/d (square rooted)=r. Thus, the radius of the massis always directly proportional to the to the two gravitational components; Fc (centripetal force) and Fo (orbital force or velocity of it).
Everybody insists that there is no such a thing as orbital force, but in fact there are two components of gravity, and since one the Fc is defined as a force, why shouldn't the other one be defined as such, since its action is the source that causes all bodies to orbit around in accordance of it magnitude. Its action however is circular and uniform in its direction-parallel to the equator. In other words, the two gravitational components act in exactly the same manner as magnetic or electromagnetic field does-in the right hand rule RHR that is. Therefore, what should the orbital component be called? Any suggestion
The units of the two gravitational components are different, Fc=m/s/s, whereas, Fo=m/s (is constant at specific distances, it increases or decreases if the distance changes).

31. mG/d^2= Fc, & mG/d (square rooted)= ov , and mG/ov^2= r, or, mG/d (square rooted)=r. Thus, the radius of the massis always directly proportional to the to the two gravitational components; Fc (centripetal force
What are you calling the centripetal force a gravitational component and than screwing up it's equation. It's not a gravitational force.

two gravitational components
You can chop up the gravity vector against any orthogonal coordinate system (and others) but you like but it still represents just one gravitational force vector.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement