An analysis of galaxial forms and motions.

Hi Jim, 11/6/06

I hope what I add here appropriately addresses the issues you have raised.

In your prior memo you said the gravity field needs to be defined in some new way and you asked ‘does it move in some way’. I focused my last memo on pushing gravity trying to address those ideas. I will try again because pushing gravity is important for relating to rotation and revolution. In empty space my gravity particles (PAEPS) travel equally in all directions at speed C. Their ‘net’ effect is zero so we detect no force. Now, insert a mass and, while the paeps penetrate the mass, some are blocked by it. Then for a body on one side of the mass the paeps from above are not blocked but some from below are so there is a ‘net’ difference we define as a force. Say in some measure it’s quantity is 10 pressures down and 5 up yielding a net pressure down of quantity 5. As one gets further from the mass, like at a planet such as earth, relative to the sun, the diminished 5 pressures aiming up merge with more 10s to bring their effect to say 9. So there is a ‘net’ pressure/force caused by the sun upon earth of 1. That is represented as a straight line pressure, but there is more. The spin of the sun makes the 5 pressure paeps travel a bit sideways, thus in a bent path. They will therefore impact earth somewhat from the right. There is now this second imbalance with more impacts from the right that from the left so the ‘net’ difference is a force pushing the earth to the left. Paeps also penetrate earth with an imbalance to the right of center because of the bent path of the solar diminished paeps. This ‘net force’ pushes the earth internally so it rotates counterclockwise.

The reason to relate via this view has to do with force lines. In the ‘pushing’ picture there are force lines of measure 10 directed at earth from every direction except from the sun. That force line has the ultimate measure of 9 as discussed above. Because mass particles on the spinning sun’s surface impact the paep stream from the side as the paeps depart, their stream travels in a bent path. From such discussions one can understand a bending of the measure 9 force line. The force lines are all directed toward the earth. Using attraction gravity, force lines transfer force in the opposite direction toward the sun. Pulling/attraction gravity suggests a straight centripetal force line. But gravity does more. How are we to understand a force line, which for attraction gravity must originally aim forward in earth’s path and then bend to form a line toward the sun. Do we say that the sun attracts the earth forward in its orbit? From what physical feature would we ever deduce something like that? The difficulty in conceiving of this is why attraction gravity hinders understanding. It’s force is limited to the straight line while pushing gravity force is not.

Back to the galaxy, we need the idea discussed above of stars balancing their local environment by both ‘attracting’ nearby bodies and guiding them into orbital motions. Otherwise, with all the stars in the galaxy pulling on each other, some would ultimately collide, or if their original motions kept two apart they would seem to linearly aim toward some other stars. There are so many stars, happenstance would suggest collisions.

Now I’ll try to address the structure of the galaxy. I dispute the idea of applying long term motion measures to suggest the nature of the structure of galaxies. I do believe current visual determinations of direction and distance of stars do present a reasonable picture of a domed pinwheel. So, beginning with that structure the local motions are an important next step.

From the original memo, two bodies guide each other around themselves, thus orbiting a central point. If we add a third body and the motion of one of the originals results in it becoming closer to the new one than to its original partner, it will change direction under the influence of the new one and approximately orbit that one instead. If you have a series of this type of capture transfers with stars in a line you get something like my chain saw blade motion except with the arm center being more the shape of a boomerang. A very important structure question is whether orbiting stars complete orbits around their original partners or if they are passed along. Maybe it occurs one way toward one end of the arm and otherwise toward the other end. The ability to complete orbits by moving between ones partner and some other star requires some measure of orbit inclination as previously discussed. In the chain saw picture I felt directional discussion was necessary. Given the very slow revolution motion one star makes vs its neighbor, it can be described as being to one side of that neighbor relative to some outside north above either the stars themselves or above the galaxy center. Then before the orbital gets to another side it is released to the nest star in line. By extension, it travels continuously along a path which, as a line, can be identified as being in some direction from it’s original partner. But you are right that suggesting which direction bogs down the description of motions

Regarding overall direction of motion, attempts to judge the galaxy rotation from earth’s seeming motion and specify a clockwise circuit in 226 million years is meaningless. For one thing, local motions wash out any significance of the lesser overall motion. Only a picture of most all local motions could yield an overall motion. In fact my construction seemed to suggest a small counterclockwise motion, taking longer than the 226 million year clockwise theory. But as you suggest, how do you define a stationary, non rotating observer to make these judgements.

Perhaps your statement about ‘seeing the structure’ relates to being able to calculate what is going on. Clearly there are so many relevant bodies that no local determination will ever be complete. However we can discuss the 2 body problem. There are only 3 factors of importance. They are the distance apart, the measures of masses and the spin/rotation rates. 1. The distance issue is like in the solar system where the greater the distance, the slower the orbital speed. 2. Mass of the central body plays a role by specifying the beginning gravitational measure of the paep stream, ie their - net - component contribution. 3. The spin rate of the central body determines the degree of bending of the paep stream at any distance from the central body. Now, since each of the 2 bodies is central to the other, we must multiply their spin rates together as well as multiplying the masses like in our gravitation formulas. The multiplier effect may alleviate some concern about the minute gravitational interaction between stars.

Hopefully this gets us back on track. Further discussion of inclined orbits and structure within the dome region might be useful.

Paul Schroeder





paul schroeder

Paul, I don't think you are on the track but rather bogged down here by stuff not related to the structure of the galatic disk. The disk is composed of billions of stars if not trillions of stars. The distance between the individual stars is trillions of miles so the stars cannot be orbiting each other at any time because the force of gravity between any two stars is too small(except for binaries which is another detail not related to the disk structure). The gravity force does force the stars to move around the disk as if a central mass was involved. They are all moving around the center much faster than current theory suggests they should because there is no central mass. The mass is spread out over the disk.

Hi Jim, 11/16/06

I was confused regarding your focus on structure and have stewed about how to respond. I thought detailed description that pictured the structure of galaxies was the goal and that I was providing it. From your concerns about Kepler laws not working and about excessive distances between stars, I finally decided you are asking the hard question of what laws and formula apply to the galaxy. So, I dug deep into my can of worms to reorient my thinking about time, absolute space, etc. I’ve struggled trying to get my worms in a row. I put many of them back in the can. I did gain perspective from them. One need is to more completely generalize existing gravity formulas. Currently the contribution by the orbital appears not properly addressed. Also, for mutual revolutions, we need a non- rectilinear, higher power, coordinate system translation.

In overview, Kepler’s laws were derived from known facts about the solar system. The galaxy has different facts so the laws must be different.

1. Law 1; planets move in ellipses with the sun at a focus’ doesn’t apply to galaxies because there is not one focus point. To approximate a focus point you would have to diagram the potential orbit of a point around each discrete central star and average them.

2. Law 2 ; A vector - sun to planet draws out equal areas in equal times’ again suffers from no focal point. There cant be constant speeds relative to one galaxial mass or group of masses due to the influence of all other masses. There has been no observed acceleration dependent upon r in galaxies.

3. Law 3; The cube of the axis/radius is proportional to the period of revolution comes from timing calculations of orbiting point sources relative to the central mass - sun. There are not point sources but rather significant sources in the galaxy.

A difference about galaxy centers, which inhibits applying the Kepler formula there, is seen by gradually moving a subject point mass directionally away from the center say toward the west. The central gravitation effect upon it, and upon it’s orbital speed is reduced as you move outward. This reduction is overcome by more total stars being to one side, the east, and jointly gravitating upon the point mass. Kepler’s laws don’t apply in general, so we need details.

The first issue leading toward formula modification is that, even using attraction gravity, the path by which the central mass affects its orbital is not the same as the path by which the orbital reciprocates it’s gravitational effect upon the central mass. I assume non instantaneous gravitation here. During the time of passage of gravitational force from one body to another the bodies have moved. Draw the two centripetal lines starting either at the same time or at the same point, where one line ends and the other starts and the lines must bend somewhat relative to each other in order to impact their relocated target. Also, the two attraction forces are directed in the opposite direction. So, my concern is with putting the dependent mass into the Newtonian gravitation equation without also inserting it’s gravitation constant (thus squaring g). You may argue there can be no modifying Newton’s equation since it works so well throughout the solar system. However, all accepted orbiting situations in the solar system consist of a center and an orbital between which the center of mass is within or close to the central body. The central body is thus gravitationally affected by it’s orbital and forced to revolve around an internal point so that it’s result to ‘local’ observers is that it rotates. The orbital body causes the center to spin based principally on the orbitals distance and time of rotation/speed. Kepler’s solar system formula is only used to determine orbital revolution. We haven’t applied it to consider rotation of the center. The need to do so increases in the more complex situation where the center of mass is outside and distant from the central body.

Essentially Kepler’s formula defaults to considering the orbitals to be nearly point masses and to be quantified as 1. Were we to analyze the continuous relocation of the sun like if the center of mass were outside the central body, the orbital contribution becomes more recognizable. We might recognize the joint revolution around some central point. The closer to equal the two masses are, the closer to absolute center is their revolution center. This perspective is from the vantage point of an ‘outside’ observer who can identify motion of both bodies. The center relocates as you imagine increasing mass for the orbital. Kepler’s 3rd law doesn’t apply now, but what does? The mass of the orbital, which was previously 1, now plays an increasing role. The maximum orbital contribution is when the two masses are identical. Beyond that, the orbital becomes considered the center. The original masses were relatively so small that using 1 rather than their individual mass was sufficient for the orbital side of the calculation. Now the mass itself matters. Kepler 3rd law must be modified for bodies orbiting the sun which have sufficient mass to position the center of mass outside of the sun.

Fortunately our sun is a member of the galaxy, so we can use a modified Kepler formula to relate stars orbiting our sun to planets orbiting our sun. We would like to arrive at the same ratio of time to distance as for the solar system. Unfortunately, the further out the planet, the less it follows the law. A first guess for the dual star situation is to include the mass of the orbiting star as a multiplier. Then the law (in circular, not ellipse form) in first approximation becomes the cube of the radius is proportional to the dependent body’s ‘mass’ times the square of the period of revolution. Thus r(3)m / T(2) = C, C = the same constant as for the planets. One wrinkle here is that the revolution is no longer around the central body, so the relationship needs further modification to account for the smaller orbit radius - ½ as large for equal bodies.

Without our perspective and time measures determined relative to earth, Kepler’s laws would be meaningless. Given that we apply the Kepler relationship, we understand it is a ‘revolution vs the center’ phenomena. A planet is a center of it’s own so it should reciprocate and cause the initial center to revolve. A planet would seemingly cause the sun to revolve around a solar internal, point, and thus rotate at the same rate by which the planet orbits. It turns out that there are other orbital planets that also spin the sun so it rotates faster than anything revolves around it. So the sun affects, as I like to say pushes, the planets while they do likewise to it.

My reference, providing the development of Newton’s formula, is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by Max Born pages 58 - 64 in case you have that book. In the process of using Kepler’s formula to define the mutual/relative nature of weight, Newton formulates the force of the sun upon the earth and the force of the earth upon the sun. Then, out of the blue there is the statement ‘the reaction equals the action’ after which the two formulae are set equal. This is used for, but doesn’t seem necessary for, finding a single constant of proportionality called the gravitation constant. As an aside, the gravitation of the orbital on the center does modify weight via tidal action. The main issue here is that in reality there is not a ‘reaction’ occurring between the two attractions. A reaction should be something the sun caused such as motion. Instead there are two different and opposite gravitational ‘attractions’ occurring. The elimination of either one in creating the gravity formula is a at best arbitrary. While the orbital’s mass is regularly reentered into the formula, it’s proportionality should be again included as a component so possibly g should be squared in the Newton’s force formula.

Regarding Newton’s laws: Galileo showed that all things fall to earth in the same time regardless of their mass. They fall with increasing velocity. From this he deduced the concept of force accelerating their fall. Since some things don’t fall, an offset is required. Since Newton accepted Galileo’s ideas, he used the force heading down and offset it with centrifugal force sideways.

Using two perpendicular forces works well as long as they continually offset the acceleration that each would generate without the contribution of the other. I suggest a single source, paeps, as providing the two forces, and essentially netting them out.

Having two gravitationally significant masses means each affects the motion of the other. As indicated early, the force lines are slightly separate so the force actions should be considered separately. This means they be calculated separately and then merged to obtain timing considerations. The decision that permanently affects our future knowledge is how to merge the two events. It is highly theoretical since we are more like outside observers formulating a picture of the galaxy than we have been as solar system participants. The Kepler approximation works in the solar system since the masses are so different and the sun dominates. The sun’s motion is rotational and it’s displacement is insignificant. When related to equal sized mass the sun’s orbital motion affects time and the orbital center is between rather than within either mass. It seems arbitrary of Newton to simply back the ‘dependent’ mass into the gravitation formula, but it worked well enough.

The real solution will come from new coordinate translations. For most translations we assume absolute space and address rectilinear motion with translation to moving coordinate systems. In these translations the rate of motion becomes different while the acceleration quantity remains the same from one coordinate system to another. Relativity addresses the removal of absolute space and makes time a part of the translation. We are without a translation imposing one rotational motion upon another. A coordinate system centered on the sun is rotated while some coordinate system in which it is a member is also rotated about a distant center. Each center continually relocates the other. The rotations are both accelerations whereas in rectilinear translations, at least one translation was of constant motion. In this dual translation, the rate or at least the direction of acceleration varies. The mathematical description of acceleration identifies ‘delta v’. For this next level, we specify ‘delta a’ to yield a new parameter which remains constant while ‘a’ itself varies.

Given no specific pattern yet found, we have two choices to try applying for a galaxial law. We can insert the second gravitational force into Newton equations or we can insert the orbital’s mass into replacement Kepler laws.

If a modified law I suggested here is decent, then viewing the structure of the galaxy is a case of repeated application of this two body law. Attending to the details provides a view of the whole picture. My paeps are space itself. The important detail is that gravitation causes the revolutions. Spinning bodies bend the paths of paeps and thus causing a swirl in the space around the body which simply diminishes toward infinity, expiring well beyond a trillion miles. Secondly, there is the previously formulated joint effect of two bodies swirling each other. Then you can picture ‘sphere of influence’ platters upon the galaxy disk representing the swirl and radiating out from every star. Any particular point will be covered to some degree by however many of these platters you chose to use for calculations, be it dozens to millions, depending on how thoroughly you want to sum the forces upon the point. Most platters are spinning counterclockwise, because their origin stars are spinning that way. Then whenever there are more stars to one side than another of that point, it will be pushed directionally. I have previously explained how the concentration of stars in the center causes bending of outer arms to the left and how the concentration of stars within arms causes directional motion of points to either side.

All these spheres of influence have to be added up some way to determine how a point will move. It’s like a mass of perturbations. I don’t know how perturbations are calculated. The important concern of these perturbations is determining the directional push of gravity rather than addressing the force of attraction.

To formulate reality for the large, the fast, or the distant, a way to tie everything together is to base all actions on the super small, omnipresent, active theoretical element - the paeps of gravitation. They influence all things thus being analogous to the power attributed to God.


Paul Schroeder


paul schroeder

Hi Paul, You are very much deeper into this topic than I am but one thing you missed is the fast the stars in the galatic disk are all moving very fast in the same direction. That fact will also have an effect on the structure of the disk. As for Kepler and Newton I have dug very deep into their laws and believe them. They don't work on the structure of the disk as currently applied because modelers assume the geometric center of the disk has a lot of mass. In fact the center of any gravational structure is devoid of mass. This is true of the two mass model you are presenting too when the two masses are equal. It is this fact that leads me to conclude the current model of the Earth is bogus as well as models of other structures. No body agrees with me on this detail but some day they will. Anyway, back to the two mass model-if you place all the mass at one body the other body will obay the gravity laws but if you put half the mass at both points they don't act as expected from applying the laws as you are doing. Its because the 1st body is orbiting the 2nd and the 2nd body is orbiting the 1st. Thats not the same as both bodies orbiting a barycenter. Don't get bogged down in pointless logic like tidal force and direction of rotation or forces to counter force that make things move.

Hi Jim, 11/18/06
I have a few questions for you.
1. By fast stars in the galactic disk, are those ones further out on the arm?
2. By fast, do you mean fast enough to revolve in step with inner stars, or faster yet?
3. By in the same direction, do you mean rotationally, like a clock, or rectilinearly?
4. Which direction?
5. I don’t think I addressed counter forces nor focused on tidal forces. What made you address them to me as pointless logic?

Possibly my discussion of speed of stars in memo 2, where I discussed the arm creation, was unclear. When the innermost star in a line rotates 1 degree counterclockwise, there is a sequence of counterclockwise forces by it and by each star further out upon the next star. In that single time period further out stars are multi-shifted at higher angles, up to 90 degrees for example. That creates the arm in this single shift and the further out the star the faster it moves to it’s new position relative to the original line. They do so by all moving/orbiting at the same speed and the same 1 degree shift relative to their prior star which caused the local part of their shifting.

Regarding direction of motion, I have seen articles mostly specifying clockwise rotation of the galaxy, with some being uncertain about direction. I don’t know if their view is relative to the galaxy center or to earth. It needs to specify the outside observer, and I don’t know how they define an other wise non-rotating center. My problem here is my model suggests mostly counterclockwise motion as viewed from the hypothetical region above the disk.

Regarding your suggestion the model of earth is bogus, Do you imply some degree of emptiness within for earth and thus for the sun? My gravity model relates ‘net gravity’ to spin as that is what diminishes the force of penetrating paeps and effectively defines density. That spin is of the penetrated body itself and of it’s elements via their electron spin. Possibly the spin of the body itself could provide most of the net force so the center supplies little. I do question simply an iron center as that doesn’t seem to provide enough spin force in any gravitation model.

Barycenter - a new concept to me. As you mention it doesn’t apply here since the forces are initiated at the two disbursed points, only the resultant revolution focus is at the ‘center of mass’.
Paul

paul schroeder

For most of your questions I have to rely on data that has been published which you should have no problem finding. As I understand the data all the stars in the disk are moving at about the same speed around the geometric center. As far as CW/CCW goes it depends on what you identify top/bottom(a detail addressed in a prior post). The center of all gravitational structures is empty because the mass is not concentrated at a point as is required by Kepler's law. I may have left something so reask whatever.