Excellent series of questions, I think they are all conceptually answered within this framework, Moret-Bailly’s description of solitons, and Morris Anderson’s (deBroglie) wave mechanics: Essentially it is a stability issue:

In this conceptual interpretation of the Anderson equations, the denser a ‘core’ object becomes, the more approaching light is slowed and blue shifted. The limiting case becomes an expanding black body rather than a black hole, radiating nearly as much energy as it is absorbing. Black holes never form, however the frequency being radiated can be redshifted at many times the gravitational limit imposed by conventional general relativity.

This “Almost a black hole” slowly increases in size as it accumulates mass. Gravitational force is greatest on the surface of any object. As the size increases until it’s internal distances are large relative to the speed of light, the potential exists for the shape of the mass to become asymmetric and unstable. (This is because it takes time for the gravitational forces associated with one area of the mass to be transferred across the entire body. Accretion of groups of galaxy substructures, and/or collisions with other galaxies cause this instability.)

Just as a large soap bubble in the wind oscillates, then breaks into two or more smaller ones, an accreting galaxy core will eventually separate into two (or more) accreting sources.

This is the birthing process of a pair of new quasars. They separate themselves from the host galaxy because in the initial split, the gravitational potential between the two galaxies is dramatically reduced, and all the energy within these boundaries flares out of this confining shell into a galactic plane.

The masses of the splitting core furthest from galactic plane become newly formed accreting hosts – quasars. The radiative pressure in the chaotic center pushes these quasar cores further apart. These intrinsically redshifted quasars accrete mass eventually becoming maturing into new, blue elliptical galaxies, the more mass assembled about the core, the more hidden the intrinsic redshifts of the galactic centers become.

Arp’s observation that quasars are born with high intrinsic redshifts, often from the cores of older, less intrinsically redshifted galaxies, is correct. His causal mechanism for aging is wrong. Notice that quasars can also be isolated, or form from younger galaxies as well, a galaxy does not have to achieve a certain age in terms of intrinsic redshifting before the central mass becomes unstable and splits.

Obviously, as the number of galaxies increases, they cannot continue to always move away from each other, so collisions between galaxies do occur. Across the whole universe the birth rate and death rate are in equalibrium.

Galactic collisions distribute both radiative energy and matter in unpredictable patterns, but once a gaseous path links two galaxies, the gravitational bridge between them becomes a more or less permanent bond. This is why galaxies are found in clusters with blue galaxies dominating the mass center: the more connecting masses, the higher the accretion rate and the probability of finding newly formed blue galaxies increases. Near the edges of clusters, the opposite is true: There is less matter to feed the core and galaxies age and redden

The infrared background is the continuum emission predicted by Olber. The low frequency component is constantly absorbed by galaxies and reemitted as a gaussian distributed black body, as outlined in this post. This is why there is both a microwave and infrared cosmic background.

Low energy radiation is absorbed by galaxies. As this energy is transferred to the galaxy core by physical processes, the wavelengths from multiple source are combined until they are quit literally converted matter. In galaxy cores this matter is accreted until the galaxy increases to a size at which the core is unstable.

As I follow the flow of energy through this matrix, there is no net increase in entropy. A cluster of galaxies is truly a perpetual motion machine, bleed off no more energy than what it receives and processes from external sources. Is such a dynamic state possible? Since the universe exists the conclusion is yes.

It should be possible to predict or model the Tully-Fisher relationship - the rotational energies are directly proportional to the mass distribution. We should also be able to predict the wavelength of radiowaves emitted from galaxies when we understand the mass/inertia slope.

We have tossed around the idea of polarizing the Piezo electric effect, isolate the vibrational motion in one direction. We decided this is most likely not possible because it would require an a ramped EM DC offset.

To an extent we are already applying these principles: mag levitated trains, cathode ray focusing. We already know how to manipulate gravity, and this thesis does not provide a free lunch.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?