Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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.
|
Um, where is the observational evidence that NGC 2915 has a central black hole either? Certainly it's structure is surprising, but unless you can provide a model that shows how a central black hole could produce that structure, your idea doesn't have any observational support here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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.
|
Um, no. It's a supposition based on your idea. You would need actual observational evidence here. Besides, it's the dark matter that's spinning VIRGOHI21. A central object, regardless of its mass, wouldn't explain the rotation curve. That's the issue with dark matter in general: it needs to be spread throughout the galaxy rather than concentrated at the center. A central black hole doesn't solve the rotation question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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.
|
Since this hydrogen is producing radiation and behvaing just like all other hydrogen that we know of (that's why we can detect it after all), why wouldn't it be "stable" yet?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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.
|
Current theory does say that GRB's are caused by the formation of a black hole. However, it's
your idea that this produces the hydrogen that will then form a galaxy. No GRB was seen in either NGC 2415 or VIRGOHI21, and there is no observational evidence of a central black hole in either. Now, there might be one that we cannot see, but then you cannot claim that this is evidence in favor of your idea. That is, you're saying that there must be a central black hole in these cases, because according to your idea that's how the hydrogen was produced, and so the "fact" that there is a central black hole supports your idea. That's circular reasoning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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.
|
Please support this claim. That is, I'm aware that galaxies have been detected that were formed earlier than anticipated, and there are a few cases where there's interesting unexplained structure, but I don't know of "many" that are not "even close". A few papers, preferably using peer reviewed journals, would be good.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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.
|
I view the simulations the same way I view experimental archaeology. They don't prove that something
did happen a certain way, but they do prove that comething
could have happened a certain way. That's an extremely important step for a theory. For example, right now we don't have any mathematical evidence from you that a central black hole can "spin up" a galaxy of hydrogen gas; it's an unsupported claim on your part. I'm at a loss to see how a black hole of a few million solar masses can impart a huge angular momentum to a few hundred billion solar masses of hydrogen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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 may "seem" like it, but it's not the case. Energy is conserved. Since the star gives off energy, it's mass actually has to down slightly. The same is true on a galactic scale.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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!
|
Why would that be the case? The total energy and angular momentum imparted needs to be the same, even if the individual pieces are of different size. Can you support this mathematically?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
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???
|
So are you suggesting that the Sun's mass is not made up entirely of hydrogen and helium, but that a significant fraction is actually dark matter and dark energy? How do you reconcile this with dark matter not collapsing easily? For that matter, how do you reconcile this with helioseismology and other analysis of the Sun that suggest that it's appearance is consistent with being made of conventional baryonic matter.
And how would this help your idea anyway? Even if much of the galaxy is composed of dark matter, as it appears to be, when the black hole "spins it up", the dark matter will have to be accelerated as well. No matter what its composition, the total kinetic energy and angular momentum of a galaxy is the same, as long as the overall mass distribution and rotation rate are the same.