Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
They are calling it a dark galaxy and not just a cloud of hydrogen because it has a mass typical of a galaxy.
|
They are calling this a galaxy, because it is 'spinning' just like a galaxy, and then when you look at the Ghost Galaxy, you can see core lit up, with it's Massive balck hole , and the H I has actually already been spun into spiral, even before there are any stars there. Since we can see so much H I in the Ghost Galaxy with NO stars, but the core is lit up with a massive black hole, I would say that is very GOOD evidence for a Massive black hole spinning the Dark Matter Galaxy. We just can't see it yet, because it is still in its Dark Era, and hasn't had time for the Hydrogen to become stable (300 thousand years in the BBN), or the black hole just hasn't had enough time to gather the Hydrogen back suffiently enough to start star formation, and an accretion disv that we can start to see light up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GREY
Except that we've agreed that the existence of a black hole is still a supposition on your part
|
Actually it is not just a supposition. We know that a black hole is being made, when the Gamma Radiation was produced, that formed this Hydrogen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
That is, those who think that galaxies formed by collapse and merger of smaller concentrations of matter can show, through analysis and simulation, that such a model actually works well to produce the various galaxies we see. You've claimed that your idea will also work, but for it to be taken seriously, you'd have to show through similar modeling that it actually works.
|
I hope you won't mind if I put 0 stock dollars on this!
There is so much evidence against this now it's not even funny, they have been finding many many LSB's and BCD's that are not formed even close to the BB's design or timeline.
The simulations are even worse, IMHO, the only thing they will prove, is that they can alter changable parameters well enough to make things come out the way they want them to! They won't prove a thing for theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
No, it has to be pretty much right unless there's an additional source of matter as the stars form. Since you're suggesting that the matter comes out in a single burst, and then stops, there shouldn't be large quantities of matter still coming from the center after that. So, without an additional source of matter, the mass of the galaxy must remain largely constant.
|
Yes, the Gamma Radiation from the original burst is it, unless it is somehow shown, that when the AGN starts its 'jets', that these 'jets' are high enough GEV or TEV energy to create "SOME" more par production Hydrogen/Helium. Or, This may just be a way for a galaxy to really 'kick start' much higher star formation ratio's.
[additional source of matter as the stars form.]
I wan't thinking additional "Source", but more like...since it 'seems' like a star is much 'heavier' once its gravitational collapse it complete and its nucleor furnace starts up, that it would be heavier (more massive) than all the Hydrogen/Helium that it is made of. It also 'seems' that a black hole would have a much easier time 'spinning' a cloud of the light gases H I and He, than it would a whole galaxy worth of stars/planets/rocks and dust!
And then I immediately thought, wait a minute, if space is made up of 'tiny' (Yea, Planck size) parts of gravity DM/DE, then when a cloud of H I/H II is collapsing to form this star, what if in this process xxx amount of this 'extra' gravity gets trapped in the star???