[Tron]

Hi Guys,

I thought I would share with you a theory I'm working on.  I believe that a central landmass lies at the center of each Galaxy.  These land masses are what we refer to as Black Holes.   

Traditionally, black holes are viewed as very dense collapsed stars with no visible light emission.   Below is an artist rendition of a black hole and an article describing them more.  https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2319/first-image-of-a-black-hole/



The second image is a re-creation of what I think the center of each galaxy looks like. You'll notice I replaced the center with a habitable land mass and a solar system similar to our own.  Rotating planets, gas, and asteroids around a central star system may be shared by all galaxies.  The "orange rings" of hot gas we see in black hole photographs are Auroras caused by solar radiation hitting the atmosphere like on Earth.  Unfortunately, it might be too dim to capture images of land beyond a black hole. 



The original image came from an article that describes another theory of two merging black holes early in the Milky Way's history if you're interested: http://annesastronomynews.com/has-galactic-black-hole-swallowed-its-counterpart/.
 

[BillO]

Just curious, but what makes you think this?  Have you made some sort of compelling observation based on the solution to a physical model, or is it just made up?

[Tron]

I suppose the most compelling reasons for me are observational data.  Right now we agree that the solar system orbits the Milky Way.  But in the past 10-20 years, we've discovered many smaller Dwarf Galaxies also orbit the Milky Way. To me, its not a stretch to believe we are one of them.

Assuming this is true, then our island dwarf galaxy Earth would look similar to other galaxies. 

[markjo]

Are you suggesting that the spiral arms of the Milky Way are actually dwarf galaxies?

[Tron]

No, but smaller galaxies are born from the spiral arms.

[stack]

Hi Guys,

I thought I would share with you a theory I'm working on.  I believe that a central landmass lies at the center of each Galaxy.  These land masses are what we refer to as Black Holes.   

Hey Tron,
I think supposedly most galaxies, dwarf or otherwise, have a black hole at the galactic center. In your theory, do all galaxies have a landmass at their respective galactic centers?

Also, what’s the purpose of calling the solar system a dwarf galaxy versus not? Is it sort of a geostationary argument in that the landmass at the center is not revolving? I don’t quite get why having the dwarf galaxy label applied to the solar system.

As an aside, more common notions are that the solar system is inside the Milky Way whereas the 50 or so dwarf galaxies in question are outside the Milky Way. Some actually orbit the MW, some do not. The latter are sort of just passing by or actually orbiting other galaxies.

As well, conventionally, even the smallest of galaxies, dwarves, have billions of stars and solar systems. Our little patch of space, earth and the other 7 planets, only have one star, the Sun.

[Tron]

Hi Guys,

I thought I would share with you a theory I'm working on.  I believe that a central landmass lies at the center of each Galaxy.  These land masses are what we refer to as Black Holes.   

Also, what’s the purpose of calling the solar system a dwarf galaxy versus not? Is it sort of a geostationary argument in that the landmass at the center is not revolving? I don’t quite get why having the dwarf galaxy label applied to the solar system.

Solar systems only tell part of the story.  If we are at the center of a galaxy, then earths role changes a bit.

[Tron]

Here is a photo of Carina - A Dwarf Galaxy orbiting the Milky Way. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carina_Dwarf_Spheroidal_Galaxy

[ohplease]

I suppose the most compelling reasons for me are observational data.

But as Stack points out, your proposal does not remotely correspond to observation.   You seem to accept the existence of galaxies of stars but not the characteristics and/or relationships of those objects.   Dreaming or brain doodling or whatever you want to call it can be entertaining but when you say that your are working on a theory that sounds like you view it as more than that.  Care to elaborate?

Note the evidence for black holes is the path of stars orbiting what seems an empty spot in space, from which we can estimate the mass of that unseen object and its so huge it must be a black hole.  As well as the observation of an event horizon where gas pulled into a black hole is heated and glows but then disappears.  Only black holes, as far as we know, produce this effect.

[Tron]

The grand theory will see similarities between observations we see on earth with those in neighboring galaxies.      I'm aware that we locate black holes by the orbiting bodies around it.  I'm not sure if they are orbiting the black hole or its accompanying solar system.  And below is a short clip of the northern lights.  Heated gas goes into and out of view:  Northern Lights clip:  https://player.vimeo.com/video/45819280?h=bfb07b50a6

[ohplease]

The grand theory will see similarities between observations we see on earth with those in neighboring galaxies.

Again you seem to accept the existence of galaxies but not that our sun is just one star of the 100s of billions in the Milky Way galaxy and that even nearby galaxies are vastly far away.  That is what observations tell us.

     I'm aware that we locate black holes by the orbiting bodies around it.  I'm not sure if they are orbiting the black hole or its accompanying solar system.

Its possible that planets could be orbiting black holes, but even if so the mass of a bunch of planets would be nothing compared to that of a black hole and the observed orbits of the stars require a giant mass.

  And below is a short clip of the northern lights.  Heated gas goes into and out of view:  Northern Lights clip:  https://player.vimeo.com/video/45819280?h=bfb07b50a6

Northern lights are an entirely different phenomenon and produce entirely different radiation than gas being massively heated as it falls into a black hole.  The first images of the event horizon were captures by radio telescopes as well as the Chandra X-Ray telescope.  What you see are false color images of that data where as the aurora borealis are of course visible light.

[BillO]

Assuming this is true, then our island dwarf galaxy Earth would look similar to other galaxies.

However, our local structure in the galaxy is nothing like a dwarf galaxy and the planets and sun do not orbit the earth.  We are actually near the margin of one of the spiral arms where the stars are much less densely populated.  Further, we are nothing like a black hole.  If you squeezed the earth down to a black hole it would be smaller than a golf ball.  Not much landmass there.  Then lets add the the gravity associated with a black hole would not permit anything like the kind of life we see about us.

I see no compelling reasons to draw the same conclusions as yourself.  What your proposing is a wild guess with nothing to substantiate it.  Not a scientific theory.

I'm not sure you watched that video I posted to another thread, but Feynman clearly delineated that science is a process.  You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

[Tron]

Hi All,

I've updated the image at the top of this thread to better explain my theory. 

I'm aware traditional science holds we are living in a small solar system within the milky way.  One of trillions of stars.  I'm suggesting that even though our world developed in the milky way, eventually we branched off and became a dwarf galaxy like our neighbors.  

Then what are the stars?   I don't believe galaxies or stars are as big as everyone says they are.  Like my image suggests, I think earth is relatively big and sits below the sun.  Planets and asteroids all orbit the sun and account for everything we see in the sky.  The Sun is the only "nuclear" object in the sky for which everything rotates around - except earth.  Other Galaxies have their own primary sun or bi-nary star system in the center which has planets, asteroids, and accreditation disks orbiting them as well.  

We are an "Island Universe" to ourselves.... stars included.

I think this answers most questions about earth's location. the size of stars, galaxies, etc...  Some asked what compelling data do you have that explains your model to observations?

First, Flat Earth Theory...   Over the years, many people have developed an earth model which matches observations....  I don't need to go into that.

Second, Other phenomena within galaxies that I think our own "system" can explain are Fermi Bubbles.  Huge plumbs of hot gas above and below a galactic plane as seen in purple.  I think these are what we on earth call the "Heliosphere" created by the sun emitting heat.  
Third, Relativistic Jets are another phenomena earth could explain.  Huge rays of light sometimes shine from the center of galaxies above and below the plane.  I believe Earth's Rotation can twist magnetic field lines up into space and the Sun's light illuminates it.  I don't think we can observe this from earth but Earth has the mechanisms to explain them.

Fourth, obviously Galaxies spin.  Earth and our Solar system also spin. 
Fifth, the first images of Black Holes show in my opinion the Radio Signature of an Aurora...  Very powerful electrical and magnetic events that fit well in the model above - even the twisty magnetic lines are shared between earth Auroras and Black Hole "aura's".  OhPlease - if the Chandra x ray radio telescope imaged earth's auroras I think you'd see the same images as a black hole almost exactly in size and shape. 

Lastly, scientists have speculated there is a large mass at the center of each galaxy holding everything into its orbit.   Naturally they assumed it was a traditional star system with a massive star in the middle.  However, flat earth theory can also explain celestial orbit and account for the large mass in the middle.

I could go on, but I would rather answer any specific questions if you have them.  

[stack]

Hi All,

I've updated the image at the top of this thread to better explain my theory.

I'm aware traditional science holds we are living in a small solar system within the milky way.  One of trillions of stars.  I'm suggesting that even though our world developed in the milky way, eventually we branched off and became a dwarf galaxy like our neighbors.   

Why? What's the benefit of your theory over conventional thinking?

Then what are the stars?   I don't believe galaxies or stars are as big as everyone says they are. 

Why? Why don't you think that?

Like my image suggests, I think earth is relatively big and sits below the sun.  Planets and asteroids all orbit the sun and account for everything we see in the sky. 

I could be wrong, but your updated graphic puts all the planets in between Earth and the Sun. Is that what we observe?

However, flat earth theory can also explain celestial orbit and account for the large mass in the middle.

How does FE explain celestial orbit and account for the large mass in the middle?  In other words, which FE proposal, as there are many, is attributable to the things you mention?

[Tron]

I'll try to answer a few of your questions sincerely.

I honestly think over time as observations become better along with telescopes like the James Webb, then we will see our orbit and position around the Milky Way is similar to Dwarf Galaxies.

I'm not sure why we measure stars and galaxies larger than I believe they are.  I just don't believe we can see objects light years away.  Or that light can travel that far... 

As to my claim "earth sits beneath the sun" it is misleading.  I was trying to seperate earth from the sun and its orbiting celestials.  My rendering is not to scale.  The best pictures of our solar system are obviously from space.  The earth and planets look so small from satellite images far away it's not worth me posting them but here is a link from the Voyager 1 spacecraft looking at the solar system from VERY far away.  https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/solar-system-portrait/#gallery-1 

What's interesting is how small the earth looks!   But when you remember only a certain portion of  earth is illuminated during the day and the atmosphere literally halves the image it looks like every other planet.  Another reason other large land masses like earth aren't detected in neighboring galaxies, until black holes came along.

I can try to offer you my FE Theory on Celestial Orbits.  I went into this before during our moon orbit and Apollo landing conversation, but basically objects orbit around the sun (besides earth) because the sun creates powerful winds that circle it in upwards of a million miles an hour.  And obviously the large mass in the middle of galaxies is the large world. 

[stack]

I'll try to answer a few of your questions sincerely.

I honestly think over time as observations become better along with telescopes like the James Webb, then we will see our orbit and position around the Milky Way is similar to Dwarf Galaxies.

Why? Why do you think this? What is driving you to think JWST will change our perception of our location in the Milky Way? What does changing our thinking from being a solar system to being a galaxy achieve?

I'm not sure why we measure stars and galaxies larger than I believe they are. 

It seems prudent to understand how we conventionally measure star distance and then come up with a better way to measure before you just toss out that you think something is wrong before you understand it.

I just don't believe we can see objects light years away.  Or that light can travel that far... 

What compels you, specifically, to think this?

As to my claim "earth sits beneath the sun" it is misleading.  I was trying to seperate earth from the sun and its orbiting celestials.  My rendering is not to scale.  The best pictures of our solar system are obviously from space.  The earth and planets look so small from satellite images far away it's not worth me posting them but here is a link from the Voyager 1 spacecraft looking at the solar system from VERY far away.  https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/solar-system-portrait/#gallery-1 

What's interesting is how small the earth looks!

Things that are 4 billion miles away probably look pretty small.

I can try to offer you my FE Theory on Celestial Orbits.  I went into this before during our moon orbit and Apollo landing conversation, but basically objects orbit around the sun (besides earth) because the sun creates powerful winds that circle it in upwards of a million miles an hour.  And obviously the large mass in the middle of galaxies is the large world.

Why do these solar winds only impact other planets? What have you done to determine that solar winds cause planets to orbit it?

Are all the large masses in the middle of a gazillion galaxies a "world"?

And thanks for your time fielding questions.

[ohplease]

I'll try to answer a few of your questions sincerely.

I honestly think over time as observations become better along with telescopes like the James Webb, then we will see our orbit and position around the Milky Way is similar to Dwarf Galaxies.

You accept that the JWST is real, is making observations of the cosmos and was launched from earth into space.  But everything about that process like all space launches was calculated on the standard (RE) model of the solar system which you claim is completely and radical wrong.   If JWST is real then the earth is round.  You can't have it both ways.

[Tom Bishop]

You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Galactic_Epicycles

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

[BillO]

You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Galactic_Epicycles

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

We've been through this before Tom.

The three (or more) body problem is one of finding an analytic solution to a system of differential equations.  It has nothing to do with the physics.  You have always been unable to differentiate between using numerical methods to find an analytic solution and running a numerical simulation.  Numerical simulations prove the physics and can be used to predict reality to arbitrary precision.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.

[ohplease]

You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Galactic_Epicycles

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

We've been through this before Tom.

The three (or more) body problem is one of finding a analytic solution to the system of differential equations.  It has nothing to do with the physics.  You have always been unable to differentiate between using numerical methods to find an analytic solution and running a numerical simulation.  Numerical simulations prove the physics and can be used to predict reality to arbitrary precision.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.

Indeed.  The theory here is general relativity and it has been verified by gravity probe B which directly measured the curvature, in addition to our being able to predict how the path of bodies moving through space will be impacted.