You've now made statements similar to this several times. Why do you think that an accretion disk requires star formation, or nuclear fission or fusion?

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

I will readily admit that I do not have all the answers to some of these things.
Like Bob Angrstom said in Nereids thread, most of the time when new theories come to light, much of the details have not been fleshed out yet. They have never been studied in that way yet!

The only ones we have ever studied have plenty of 'star stuff' falling onto the accretion discs for us to be able to see and detect them. In fact, that is the only way we can know there is a black hole there, is to 'see' the brightness of the Matter in the case of optical sighting, or for it to be energetic enough, as in the case of the jets, with an X-ray sighting.

The other thing is, I have now idea how long this particular Dark Matter Galaxy has been in existence, so if it has only been gathering the Gamma radiation that become the Hydrogen I for say 50 to 1000 years then it would probably be much harder to detect the black hole than if it has been say 300 thousand years and star formation is emminent. But even then, how long will it take to make enough stars to be able to optically see this galaxy, based on the distance they are from us? And can we even detect the black hole before this happens? These are certainly questions that will need to be answered.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Please note that RussT's above post is in answer to this question (as pointed out by RussT in a PM to me).

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

No, the ones we see have gas (primarily hydrogen) in their accretion disks. So there's no need for stars to have formed first, just that there be hydrogen available. We can see that there is hydrogen, so if there were a black hole, it ought to be visible, unless there's some other reason why it isn't. But it shouldn't depend on star formation at all.

In the case of normal galaxies, we don't always observe a central black hole, but of course the core of the galaxy is bright with stars and other objects, so there might be a black hole that isn't especially active and hidden from view by the intervening material. But in the case of VIRGOHI21, there's nothing to obscure our view of the center.

This isn't the most serious problem with your idea, but it does mean that you can't claim that there's observational evidence of a central black hole in VIRGOHI21. It's a prediction from your idea, but it remains an unconfirmed one.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Let's consider this alongside the OP; in all cases the bolding is mine.

"Keep in mind here, that all the math has already been done, in all the modeling of the different parts of what I am going to show. All I am doing, is showing how the different parts of the puzzle fit together, to form a coherent picture of precisely what is happening to cause the Birth Of a Galaxy"

Question: where can one find "all the math" (that has already been done)?

Question: how are we to interpret "precisely", if there is nothing quantitative presented?

"It is now well established that a Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH) exists in the center of all regular galaxies, and that these SMBH’s are rotating, so would therefore be Kerr Rotating Black Holes, which would then mean that they would have “Ring” shaped singularities somewhere in the depths of the black hole."

Question: where is the material which shows the "all"?

Question: where is the material which shows that (all) the SMBHs are rotating?

Question: as no one has ever 'seen' inside the event horizon of any black hole (SMBH or otherwise), how do you know, RussT, that there is a singularity (whether "Ring" or not) "somewhere in the depths"?

"The “First Dark Matter Galaxy Found” is a galaxy of Hydrogen I spinning just like a galaxy is supposed to because of the black hole at it’s center, and this stays dark (comparable to the dark era) for somewhere around 3 to 5 hundred thousand years or longer, before the black hole has gathered it back enough to start the star making process."

Question: how are we to interpret "just like", if there is nothing quantitative presented?

Question: where are the materials showing the "supposed to" relationship between "a galaxy of Hydrogen I spinning" and "the black hole at it’s center"?

Question: what is the mechanism that makes such a new galaxy "stay dark"?

(to be continued)

[No, the ones we see have gas (primarily hydrogen) in their accretion disks.]

Hydrogen I......I don't think so. More like Hydrogen II and Hydrogen stripped from stars as they are gravitationally torn apart as they get closer and closer to the event horizon, Plus there are lots and lots of stars to illuminate it, right

[But in the case of VIRGOHI21, there's nothing to obscure our view of the center.]

And nothing saying it should be lit up, accept your assumptions that somehow it should be.

Please show where I claimed there was "Observational Evidence" that there is a SMBH in VirgoHI21.

I in fact admitted there wasn't, but that if, my Singularity is correct, that there most definitely should be, and that this needs to be confirmed, just like the BB says that because all the Hydrogen was expanded across the universe, that the galaxies must have merged to form.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

The math I am refering to here is the outstanding job that all the GR mainstream specialists have done to model black holes.

Tensor and I have discussed this and through the course of that discussion, I have now been able to go beyond just describing the "White Hole" as a Naked Singularity, which I considered as being pretty precise. But now I can actually do much more than that!

You "THINK" (which is your right, but it is just your opinion, please re-read all the 'why the math' threads!) that it is about the math. It is not, it has much more to do with definitions, interpretations, and perceptions, as you will see once I have protected my position and post my answer!!!

Show the material that says that most do but some don't and why that would be so. If you don't want to accept this, it is your perrogative.

Please, show me a non-rotating galaxy. In fact, please show where they have confirmed a non-rotaing black hole anywhere in the universe!

You didn't ask this....did you? Is this going to be more spin control? Contrary to popular belief, the laws of physics do not break down at the singularity, in fact they are alive and well, at least they are in the SMBH. However there is a huge failure of the Naked Singularity at T=0!

Just read the paper I linked to.

Just read the 30 or so papers that will be written from 2007 to 2010...it will all be there!

Time.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Did I say HI? But it doesn't matter. HII is just HI that's been ionized. That would happen automatically in an accretion disk. Are you honestly suggesting that neutral hydrogen cannot form an accretion disk, that it has to form into stars first, and then get torn back apart into gas?

Accretion disks are brighter than stars. They shine with their own light rather than needing to be illuminated by an external source.

Only that, if there's a black hole and gas nearby, an accretion disk will form, and that will then be visible. So, for your idea to work, you'll need to expalin why that's not happening, even though we can see gas in the center.

When Cougar asked you for such evidence, you simply claimed that you "cheated", and that you already knew that there was one, and then proceeded as though that were a foregone conclusion. I really just wanted you to acknowledge what you have here, that we actually do not have any observational evidence for a black hole at the center of VIRGOHI21.

As I said, this isn't really the biggest problem I see with your idea (the density of galaxies is the clearest problem), but it means that you don't actually have any confirmation that VIRGOHI21 formed the way you think it has.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

[Did I say HI?]

We were talking about our Dark Matter Galaxy that only has HI in it, right?

[HII is just HI that's been ionized.]

Yeah, so how does HI become ionized?

[That would happen automatically in an accretion disk.]

You are assuming this! I think what you are assuming is that HI traveling at the speeds it must as it accumulates in the accretion disc, must, through friction become ionized. From everything I have read, it takes stars to ionize HI into HII. This is just HI interacting with HI.

Here is exactly what I included in the post to Cougar
Based on the accumulation of evidence I have found, there is every reason to believe there is a SMBH/IMBH in every galaxy we see, be it Dark or Light!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Um, no. Hydrogen will become ionized whenever it's mean temperature becomes high enough that the typical energy is above the ionization energy, 13.6 eV. Can you cite a source that says that only stars can ionize hydrogen? It does need energy, which can come from stars, but it's not required. Heck, most of the intergalactic medium is ionized gas, even though it's outside of the galaxies so there are few stars nearby.

I think that's fairly likely as well, but there's no direct evidence to confirm this supposition of yours, at least in many cases. So it remains a supposition.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

"The “First Dark Matter Galaxy Found” is a galaxy of Hydrogen I spinning just like a galaxy is supposed to because of the black hole at it’s center"

Question: where (RA, Dec) is the "black hole at it's center"?

Question: what is the mass of the "black hole at it's center"?

Question: what is the mass of this "Dark Matter Galaxy"?

Question: how big (light-years) is this "Dark Matter Galaxy"?

Question: how old is this "Dark Matter Galaxy"?

Please be sure to distinguish between what's observed (so, cite the observations) and what you infer, from your idea.

"The Ghost Galaxy is a perfect example for revealing how galaxies evolve from the Dark Matter galaxy"

Question: how does this evolution work (in your idea)?

Question: what are the stages, of this evolution (in your idea)?

Question: how long does each stage take?

"Notice that the Ghost galaxy is classified as a Blue Compact Dwarf Galaxy (BCD), but it is obviously going to evolve into a Spiral Galaxy. In fact, if you look at the picture again, you can even see where the “Bar” and the “Bulge” are going to be. It is also quite evident that the black hole has spun the H I into it’s spiral formation before stars have even been formed there."

Question: what is it that leads you to conclude that this galaxy "is obviously going to evolve into a Spiral Galaxy"?

Question: where is 'the black hole'?

Question: how long did it take, in your idea, for "the black hole [to spin] the H I into it’s spiral formation"?

Question: how, in your idea, did "the black hole" accomplish this?

"So, quite simply, the Dark Matter Galaxies evolve into Low Surface Bright Galaxies (LSB’s) and BCD’s, which evolve into the High Surface Bright Galaxies (HSB’s) we have all come to know and love."

Question: how long, in your idea, does it take for LSB's and BCD's to evolve into HSB's?

Question: what is the rate, in your idea, at which today's HSB's formed?

Question: when did today's HSB's form?

[quote=RussT]North, I am going to retract my answer of "NO" and change that to maybe.

Here is why...orginally when I said no, I was considering that quarks were a form of Baryonic Matter, but I see now, that it is a way of trying to show how 'mass' becomes part of Baryonic Matter. So it depends on how you define things, as to whether they are actually showing how 'gravity' becomes part of Baryonic Matter!

Actually, I have a sneaking suspision (I really don't understand the minute details of quantum particle physics well enough to know this, Eta C certainly does), that the Quark, Higgs, and Graviton camps will all be fighting over who actually shows this correctly, once it is shown that my "Birth of a Galaxy" concept is correct!

fair enough.

but the thing i like about the quark, particle perspective at least so far, is that it is three dimensional and that the farther apart quarks are the stronger their attraction becomes.( quarks come in a group of three)

Nereid, yes, all of these definitely need to be answered, and once mainstream begins looking at this correctly, these answers a definitely attainable!

Since these things have never been looked at and studied this way (it has always been assumed that the galaxies have merged to form), how can I possibly show papers that show what I am talking about?

But, there are many papers that are having great difficulty with some of the things they are finding,
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/14_1/m...per/node4.html
and the ones that are trying to "fit" these things to current galaxy formation thinking, are of course assuming certain things, like 'old' populations of GC's, Etc.

If you think that not having the answers to all your questions above, is evidence against my concepts, that is definitely not the case!

For how long now has the BB been at a complete loss to explain how SMBH's are even created, let alone where the millions to billions of solar masses worth of gravity, are coming from that make up the SMBH's!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

But surely this is putting the cart well and truly before the horse?

I mean, by your own statements, you have no theory to even begin to work on, let alone to sink your teeth into, in order to make even OOM estimates.

Further, even the simplest questions* about your claims, in terms of the very objects that you 'put on the table' as 'evidence' of the validity of your idea, are not answered.

So, how about two simple questions about method:

1) Please outline an approach that one could take, to start to develop some of the pieces of theory (or models), which could lead to OOM estimates (assuming they don't run into fatal internal inconsistencies).

2) Please outline an in principle observing program that, if implemented, would have a reasonable chance of producing results that could test your ideas.

*Some examples: "where (RA, Dec) is the "black hole at it's center"?", "how big (light-years) is this "Dark Matter Galaxy"?", "what is it that leads you to conclude that this galaxy "is obviously going to evolve into a Spiral Galaxy"?"

Really? 100's (1000's) of BB scientists have been working on "How are SMBH's Created" for how long now? It would seem to me, that if the BB were the "ANSWER", that it would be very easy to show how in the BB model, this was the case!!!

But, when I, a single non-scientist, indendent researcher, cannot answer a question that you pose, which has NEVER been studied the way I am proposing it, that proves your case against my proposal......please.

Where do you come up with these gems???

BTW, an OOM compared to what? What you "GUYS and GALS" are incapable of...is evaluating a theory on its own terms, in other words, as if the BB were not a valid picture of HOW the universe designed!

If my picture (singularities making one galaxy at a time) is correct, then there was no BB, no Inflation, no expansion as the FLWR universes are portayed, the CMB certainly does not mean what you say it means, and galaxies did not merge to come to their current configuration.

In fact, the only thing we can know at this current time is "How The Matter Gets Here", and how the galaxies form as per this thread.

The Voids definitely have something to do with the clusters and super clusters movement, but not at all like what the FLWR paradigms are saying.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

adnanmaniar
Junior Member

This is a much better place for this continued discussion.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!