An analysis of galaxial forms and motions.

Jim 10/25/06

Thanks for responding again Jim. I need people to be interested or my motivation disappears. Your mention of Kepler inspires contemplating how to move forward toward providing formulas for predicting relative star motions within galaxies.

As I have noted and you reemphasized, the solar system is focused at a center from which Kepler was able to create laws of motion. His probable process would have been to first recognize the geometry, in his case, the elliptical nature of orbits. The clue was that the Copernicus circles are specific figures within the family of ellipses. From his review Kepler could apply the geometric features of the ellipse to analyze motions. Adding in timings of transit gives our solar system rules.

Trying to apply formulas to a distributed system is more complex than doing so for our solar system which has only one focus. But as did Kepler, we need a reference base. Instead of a point, my examples show that our reference is a line extending out from the galaxy center. Calling the line the Y axis, our reference starts as a planar coordinate system. The motion within the galaxy is a function of the curve that it’s arms describe.

I have suggested the relative motions along some original line which ultimately produce the arm. I expect the next consideration should be of the outer arm where stars will revolve back underneath the arm under my construction. The revolution sequence has outer arm stars achieving motion perpendicular to the Y axis give or take. As they continue to revolve beyond that perpendicular direction, they start heading more toward the galaxy center. So, what’s next as stars move under the arm? Do they continue their orbit of their adjacent star, or is the galaxy center gravity strong enough to pull them downward and gradually roll up the whole arm? Given it’s rapid relative motions, is Barnard’s star one that is wrapping back downward?

I asked those question and have subsequently reviewed some sites for galaxy information. I learned that sol is core side (underneath) on its spiral arm - Orion. Per my geometry, that means sol must perform in one of two ways. Either it is core side because 1. It’s orbiting something central on the arm so that it’s local orbital radius is the distance to the arm center, or 2. Sol is rolling back toward the galaxy center underneath it’s arm. The fact that either explanation has us currently orbiting backward and yet we are still calculated as orbiting clockwise at 226 million years per revolution means that most of the rest of the galaxy orbits faster than we currently do. So, I predict that the faster revolution motion of other stars will be revealed sometime in the future.

The galaxy concepts I have encountered thus far have led to the aforementioned conclusion. The next goal is to define the formulas describing motions of the galaxy. To pursue analysis of motions requires data, sort of like what Tycho Brahe provided for Kepler. I find that a lot of data has been collected by a Danish study. Do you Jim, or anyone else have suggestions about where to find detail galaxy motion and distance information that is relatively easy to understand and to picture?

Paul Schroeder


paul schroeder

Hi Paul, I have never gotten as deep into this topic as you are. The motion of the sun through the galaxy arm should be forced by the stars in the arm don't you think? The standard model assumes the sun and every other star in the galatic structure is forced by the central mass as Kepler's laws require. This is a silly model but it is what is used to construct the puzzle about which are concerned. You seen to be a bit closer to the correct cause of the puzzle than those people who invent stuff like dark mass to account for the observed motion of stars within the structure.

Hi Jim, 11/1/06

Yes to your question that the motion of the sun through the galaxy arm is forced by other local stars with little effect from the galaxy center. I wasn’t sufficiently clear about the two options I mentioned for our sun, as both are local star effects. I should define the situation better as regards to some stars heading back toward center.

I presented earlier the gravitational arm bending mechanism. The most uncertain action occurs at the end of an arm. The arm ends because of the increase of bending. I addressed how the arm bends well beyond horizontal, even to 180 degrees at which point the stars are extending the line back toward center. But now the prior sections of the line as a whole probably provide some gravitational pull on end stars. How much is this pull? Do these stars orbit back around their predecessors as an ultimate function of the star orbits? If so, does a series of orbiting back cause the whole extension of the line to roll up like the octopus arm? Or do the stars from the arm end begin to slide back along the under side of the arm more like a chain saw blade?

Sliding back implies a series of gravitational capture and release by stars along the upper part of the line. If stars are returning to center, they are being helped along by the spin of the stars along the upper edge of the arm. The logic for that relates to the concept that stars spinning counterclockwise caused those stars above to bend to the left as previously noted. Now for those stars underneath the main line, stars spinning above cause them to bend/move to the right relative to our view of the system. Extending the geometry, spinning stars cause others to their left to move downward while causing those to their right to shift upward. All directions mentioned here are relative to the center, not relative to the flat disk. Anyway, stars get to the underside of an arm either by sliding back down or via some giant orbit as part of the original arm. Thus my 2 options in the prior message. Either our sun is part of the upper line extending and growing outward or it is part of the series of stars sliding back toward center under the influence of upper are stars. If it is part of the upper line it must currently be in a huge local orbit.

Paul Schroeder


paul schroeder

You have quite a huge can of worms with this project. The force each star exerts on its neighbors is so small it seems impossible to have the domanant role in shaping the galatic disk. but its a better starting point than assuming a central mass that can't be seen plays the lead role. Don't you need to determine if gravity moves at all? It seems to me a gravity field needs to be described in some new way for this to work.

Hi Jim, 11/3/06

I expect the ‘can of worms’ is bigger than you realize at this point. The topic of galaxies is just the tip of the iceberg. But understanding the motions of galaxies probably only comes from understanding all these concepts as well as the underlying theory which is the “new” description of the gravitational field you suggest. There is so much improved perspective of space that comes from a fully developed ‘pushing gravity type of system’. These concepts I have been suggesting are neither made up ideas to address facts about galaxies nor are they anything I developed in advance of these ‘memos’. I never considered anything about galaxies before. But I have contemplated gravity particles that push for many years. In the first message I made some references to the influence of my gravity theories. Having moving particles to envision makes everything about space clearer. More recently I learned the history of the LeSage system. But a key idea is missing in LeSages theory, and that is the angular motion of the particles. If you think about it, all motions in space are curved rather than straight line, and so understanding and applying angular motion is important

Things launched from earth are subject to, and acquire, some of the original motions of their launch site. Those motions are the rotation of earth and the revolution motion of earth in it’s orbit. Extending that idea, gravity particles that penetrate a body such as the sun and leave the other side acquire an angular component of motion due to the rotation of the sun . They don’t go straight up. At an orbital, such as the planet earth, there is then an excess of gravitons to the right of the planet pushing it in its orbit and also causing it’s rotation.

For one thing this eliminates the dependence on Newton’s second law of no offsetting force that would interfere with the continuous orbital motion of earth. Relying on the absence of something is so tenuous and even Newton encouraged a particle impetus for gravity in his words to Favio. Regarding the LeSage system, it failed primarily due to ‘gravitons’ inhibiting the orbits of planets. They would do so if their path was rectilinear. But with the bent path caused by their acquired angular motion they assist rather than hinder orbital motions.

It is a godsend to find someone who follows any of my developments even as long as you have. You really understand the issues. I have put my ideas (prior to galaxy ideas) into a small book which I would be glad to give to you or anyone else that is interested. To receive one you could send an address to pshrodr8@aol.com. Alternatively I can continue to post piecemeal sections of the gravity theory where relevant.

In answer to whether gravity moves at all, it pushes because it moves. Pushing gravity particles move. Regarding the small force stars exert on their neighbors, that refers to the force of attraction. The other effect, the gravitationally caused revolution, spreads throughout space. You might picture the spin of one star creating a turbulence that spreads across space. It doesn’t need to be much to have an effect at a great distance over the long time frame of galaxial rotation.

Paul Schroeder





paul schroeder

Paul, Using terms like push/pull;up/down;right/left don't add anything to the understanding of the process. Gravity is a force that makes particles move and these terms get in the way of seeing structure as it is rather than how we relate to it. For example, a galaxy rotates clockwise when viewed from above seems to make sense at first glance weather or not its right or wrong. But, atfer a moment of thinking you see it makes no sense. I don't want to get bogged down in the debate about pushing gravity for this reason. If push rather than pull is important for some reason could you say how this is so?