gravitationally-bound and gravitational-dominance defined in EM-gravity Chapt13.3 Maxwell Equations deriving EM-gravity #352 New Physics #472 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

A page on Wikipedia mentions the concept of "gravitationally-bound"
and later the concept of "gravitational-dominance" in reference to the
Sun and
Oort Cloud. But Wikipedia is thinking in terms of Newtonian gravity or
General Relativity gravity which both are fake forces. So we need to
define those two concepts in terms of EM-gravity. And the best way to
do that is
to define them in terms of galaxies. The galaxies come in types such
as the
elliptical galaxy, the spiral galaxy and the irregular galaxy and most
galaxies have a galactic-nucleus where the most dense population of
stars reside. Many of the barred spiral galaxies have rigid-body-
rotation which is evidence of EM-gravity going on. But the fact that
galaxies are a unit of "gravity-bound" and so we define
"gravitationally-bound" in EM-gravity as a galaxy and we then define
smaller units of "gravitationally-bound" as the Oort Cloud with the
Solar System residing inside as a cloud-nucleus. Another unit would be
the Solar System itself and then a smaller unit, perhaps the smallest
gravitationally bound is the asteroid Ida with moon Dactyl.

Now we define "gravitational-dominance" as a central mass object that
has the most mass of all the objects in a region and for which the
region is a unit.

Now the nice thing about EM-gravity which Newtonian/GR could not do,
is that EM-gravity must have the central mass object whether a
galactic-nucleus or a star give a minimum lower bound for gravity and
a maximum upper bound. In Newtonian/GR gravity, they went running off
into fakeries of black-holes and no upper bound, nor a lower bound.

Most galaxies are 1,000 to 100,000 parsecs in diameter (parsec = 3.2
light years).

So here we are seeing the first grave challenge of the Newtonian/GR
gravity in that gravity of that nature is not strong enough to hold
together an immense galaxy of 100,000 parsecs in diameter, for it is
just too feeble and weak. What can hold together a galaxy of 100,000
parsecs diameter is the EM-force. Now we know stars are not huge solid
bar magnets, but it only takes a few charges to equal the force of
Newtonian/GR gravity.

In EM gravity, a galaxy that has a galactic-nucleus must be directly
proportional of its mass content to the distance in parsecs of its
diameter.
So that if you provide me with the mass of the galactic-nucleus of a
galaxy, if it has one, then I should be able to provide its maximum
diameter. The mass is still proportional to the EM charges that
composes EM-gravity.

Another example is the Oort Cloud which is spherical in shape and has
contained inside itself the Solar System with the Sun as its
gravitational-dominant object. Give me the mass of the Sun and planets
and that should be directly proportional to an EM charge which then I
should be able to provide a diameter of a Cloud, the Oort Cloud, of
how long in distance it is.

In Newtonian gravity and General Relativity gravity, the Sun should
not even have the Oort Cloud following it as the Sun moves in Space at
220km/s because only EM-gravity can have a dominant mass moving in a
direction with revolving mass following the dominant mass. In
Newtonian/GR gravity the Oort cloud should have broken up quickly in
the Sun's 5 billion years of revolving around the Milky Way.

Now black-holes cannot exist in EM-gravity, for black-holes cannot
exist from the Maxwell Equations. Black-holes cannot exist from the
Pauli Exclusion principle which is derived from the Maxwell Equations
with Dirac Equation.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

read Alfven, fool.