Akinbo
Thanks for the continued dialog.
``In doing this he reaches his goal in a finite time, unlike the infinite time using division.'' Yes. Thus the idea is physically practical whereas the division is not physical.
When you subtract something from another, where are you keeping it?
The subtraction is merely a calculation to determine a physical relation. What does it mean to ``keep it''. There is nothing to keep. The distance from the starting point remains the distance from that point to the goal until some force expends energy to move one or the other.
The idea of evolution of elliptical galaxies to spiral galaxies is an old idea (discredited) called the Hubble sequence. The classification scheme is still used but the idea of evolution has been dropped.
I mentions the broad differences between elliptical and spiral galaxies in Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift which was published in New Astronomy 11 (2006) 344-358. The data and comments are from Binney,~J., Merrifield,~M., 1998. Galactic Astronomy. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ
Below is an excerpt:
``The great majority of elliptical galaxies are observed to be much poorer in cool gas and hydrogen than spiral galaxies of comparable luminosity \citep[pages 527-8]{binn}. The bulk of the interstellar matter (ISM) in spiral galaxies is H{\scriptsize{I}} and hydrogen. In elliptical galaxies, the bulk of the ISM consists of hot plasma distributed approximately spherically rather than in a thin disk \citep[pages 525-6]{binn}. A characteristic of elliptical galaxies not found in spiral galaxies is that the X-ray surface brightness is nearly proportional to the optical surface brightness \citep[pages 526]{binn}. The study of dust lanes suggests that gas and dust are falling into elliptical and lenticular galaxies \citep[pages 513-6]{binn} and are formed internally in spiral galaxies \citep[pages 528-9]{binn}. Some evidence has been presented that suggests irregular galaxies will settle down to being a normal elliptical galaxy \citep[page 243]{binn}. In low surface brightness (LSB) spiral galaxies, the outer rotation curve (RC) generally rises \citep[and references therein]{debl}. In contrast, ``ordinary'' elliptical galaxies, with luminosities close to the characteristic $L^*$ (=2.2 $\times 10^{10} \, L_{B,\odot}$ in B band solar units for a Hubble constant $H_\mathrm{o} = 70 $ km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$) show a nearly Keplerian decline with radius outside $2R_\mathrm{eff}$, where $R_\mathrm{eff}$ is the galaxy's ``effective radius'' enclosing half its projected light \citep{roma}.''
``Galaxies in groups and clusters (``clusters'') are much more likely to be elliptical or lenticular than in the field. Spiral galaxies lie farther from the center of clusters than do elliptical galaxies. The fraction $f(E)$ of galaxies that are elliptical galaxies in clusters varies from 15\% to 40\%. Clusters with a large value of $f(E)$ tend to have a regular, symmetric appearance, often with a large cD galaxy at its center. Clusters with a low value of $f(E)$ generally have a ratty appearance. The fraction $f(Sp)$ of spiral galaxies in centrally-concentrated clusters increases with radius $R$ from the center of the cluster. The observations are consistent with the model of their being no spiral galaxies in the cores of regular clusters. The lenticular (S0) galaxies become increasingly dominant at small radii. Nearer the core the fraction $f(S0)$ of S0 galaxies declines sharply as $f(E)$ increases sharply. Also, the $f(E)$ increases and $f(Sp)$ decreases as the projected number $N_\mathrm{d}$ density of galaxies increases. There appears to be a close relation between $N_\mathrm{d}$ and $R$. The morphology of galaxies appears strongly correlated with the current surrounding density. ''
Most of these observations are mysteries in current cosmology. But you'll notice the STOE fits these observations very well especially the bit about the flow of matter out of spiral galaxies (like from a source) into elliptical galaxies (like into a sink). This is data. Ascribing the nomenclature of Source and Sink is mine.
``If so, how do you cut a surface into two?'' I suppose you're talking about the hod. The diameter of the hod is postulated to be the smallest that a single object can be. Part way across the surface can be contemplated. But to physically cut the smallest thin in the universe would violate the postulate and the usefulness of the hod. However, I have thought a future line of thought is to construct the structure of particles larger than the photon. The STOE suggests the structure of particles with the same type of material accounts for the size and differences among the particles.
My first try was to consider a hod could be perpendicular and through another to form a structure. first try .
``Something "distance" that can be subtracted from can in some real sense be labelled a substance since it can be acted upon. And whatever can be acted upon MUST also be capable of reacting (or acting).'' Distance is a measurement. The distance between 2 objects can be reduced by application of a force or change in energy. If you mean something else, please define your term.
My plenum is like the `space' of GR. Hods act on the space to create the gravity well and the plenum acts on hods to direct their path.