Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.)
|
Is this object black enough, so that we don't see them unless they are very close to us? I don't think we have seen this kind of objects, this is some kind of low redshift quasar, isn't it? Or is it regular galaxy nucleus you are talking about?
Not having black holes is a good thing, because I don't much like the traditional black hole concept.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
Figure 7
in this paper (it's on page 11) might show an example of this. According to what you say, we have there ARP 220 that has just divided to two objects. Other one looks more compact and more massive and it's redshift is 0.018. Other one is more fuzzy and appears less massive, so it's redshift is 0.09. Earlier ARP 220 has spit out two small mass objects, both with redshift of about 1.25.
I just wonder if you can get enough velocity for these separating objects. Arp has reported ejection velocities of about 0.1c (but I don't know how speculative this is), so can you get so big velocity with your splitting process?
If small mass means large redshift, why stars don't have huge redshifts? Why the Moon doesn't have z=10?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Across the whole universe the birth rate and death rate are in equalibrium.
|
You already described birth, but how death happens? Do galaxies just radiate themselves out of existence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
This makes sense to me, because I have always thought that in a static universe entropy should stay constant. But there will be a lot of people saying that it is not possible.