Michael, here is my siggestion, for what it is worth.

Either The Big Bang is right, or I am right. I truely can't see how any other applications of GR could apply to the universe as a whole, accept these two.

In other words, either the Matter gets here "All At Once" through the BB Naked Singularity, and makes a whole universe, OR If I am correct, then the Matter gets here one galaxy at a time, and the ring singularity in the depths of the MBH's "Make Space" for the galaxies to be made in!

So, I suggest you pick one, or choose both, and study, study, study them and determine which one works best for you, and "STOP" all this Ad-Libbing, because quite honestly, you are not making anything fit together at all!

For example, this is abolutely meaningless. If the Big Bang Happened then mine cannot be happening, and if Mine happens, then the Big Bang Never happened at all!

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

Okay, I will rephrase this to say that mainstream has been working on the solution to this dilema for the better part of 3 decades, and are no closer to an answer to how Millions to Billions of sol Mass can become gravitationally collapsed and locked inside an event horizon, than they were when they started, as per all the different "Possibilties" that are suggested elsewhere and below.

Above, you didn't say "Micro", but I have seen numerous suggestions that early primordial black holes merged to become the ones we see today.

I didn't suggest this was viable. I was simply saying that the 'dust cloud' (Hydrogen cloud) collapse to a MBH was NOT viable. and that we 'know' that hydrogen clouds collapse to become stars! And that a hydrogen cloud collapsing to become a Million to Billions sol mass star that becomes a MBH, is definitely NOT viable.

So is this your #1 contender? Because this is definitely NOT what the Nuker team is saying.
And this is similar to what I said, when I said that I have seen numerous different ways that black holes could have merged to become what we see today in galaxy cores. So, are you saying that POP III stars merged to form them?

I will admit that I had to read this many times to figure out what I am about to show. And in this entire analysis, how they are made, and if they come first or during, growing or standard sized, is still totally up for grabs.

First, they are dealing only with very old galaxies. Their logic is pretty good, but ultimately, it is flawed, and they left out a very tenable possibility in it developement.


[So far, astronomers have found a supermassive black hole in every galaxy observed that contains a bulge component. Therefore the observed correlations say that black hole mass is intimately connected with bulge formation]

This is also true of the whole galaxies formation.

[One correlation says that bigger bulges contain bigger black holes, with exceptions: a few galaxies contain anomalously big black holes.]

And this is also true of an entire galaxy.


[Alternative theories come in two extremes. (1) Maybe black holes came first in a standard size, namely 0.2 % of the mass of the first galaxy fragments. Then mergers of small galaxies made big galaxies, and the big galaxies still contained 0.2 % mass black holes because, when two galaxies merge, their black holes merge, too. Or (2) Maybe black holes started out small and then grew during galaxy formation. If 0.2 % of the gas that makes stars always gets fed to the central black hole, then the black hole mass fraction is always 0.2 %.]

And the Bold here is there first real flaw. They 'assume' galaxy merger if they started small, and therefore black hole merger to become massive!!!

There is definitely another possibility here, which of course is mine...The MBH started as a standard size, which is 0.2% of the mass of the galaxy.


[But the stars in these galaxies move faster, too, and they do so by precisely the right amount so that the scatter in the black hole mass -- random velocity correlation is small. What does this mean? The reason why the stars move so rapidly is that the galaxy collapsed to an unusually small size when it formed. Then stars are closer together, so their gravitational forces on each other are bigger, so they must move faster. But if black holes are unusually massive whenever galaxies are unusually collapsed, then black hole masses was probably fixed by the collapse process. The alternative -- that bigger black holes cause a galaxy to be more collapsed -- is less likely, because bigger black holes would power brighter quasars; their radiation would push on the protogalactic gas and would tend to make it collapse less, not more.]

So, the Bold here, shows that the bigger the black hole, the faster the stars move, with a very high sigma. As for the correlation to the amount of collapsing, they are doing this with the stars already formed, so when they get to the LSB's and the BCD's and The Dark Matter Galaxies, none of this will hold up.

If they would just collapse a galaxy all the way down to its HI/He> electrons and protons> High Energy GeV/TeVRadiation, they would be amazed at what they would find!

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

Nereid, I have done exactly that...

Unifying GR & QFT

[If you don't have answers to questions about such an idea, just say so]

I have, but you seem to think that not knowing the answers or even being able to obtain the answers at this current time is Falsifying a hypothesis!

Asking questions you know I or anyone else cannot answer at the current time gets us nowwhere, but seems like a tactic you like to use for discrediting and trivializing.

Show how my hypothesis is WRONG. Debunk it. Find some internal inconsistancies, if you can.

Just asking for MORE EVIDENCE is not showing how my idea CANNOT be possible!

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

Well, I didn't read that whole thing or the discussion following it, but it appears one of the key points of your proposal is....This ain't happening, and it ain't gonna happen. I don't know what else I can say. Oh, I know -- Explain in quantum detail how this can happen.

One of the problems here is, there is no problem in explaining the "spewing gamma radiation." This is understood. There is no need for any "new, improved" explanation.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Cougar, is this a hit and run, or are you going to stick around for the conversation???

Well, there you have it then! That's what we need, is more people well ensconced in their personal belief system!

Really? So the current paradigm can unify GR and QM, explain in quantum detail how SMBH's are created, explain galaxy formation in ONE well constrained model, and Oh yea, explain DM and DE?

So, you just 'assumed' the whole thing must be "IMPOSSIBLE"?

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

Call it what you like. I don't think this is scientifically viable. I did soften my comment to, "Explain how this can happen."

Those are indeed ongoing problems. But I don't see how denying fairly well understood accretion disk dynamics solves any of these.

No, I assumed it was LONG.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Yes you did, but here is your exact wording...[Explain in quantum detail how this can happen.]

My bold here makes it appear that you were willing to look at "Detailed" (and certainly a "FULL" quantum detailed explanation would be LONG) explanation.
My paper is NOT as long as any detailed quantum paper would be, but DOES describe the basics of what is happening for this to occur.

So you didn't even read far enough to see that this is NOT about Gamma Radiation from accretion discs?

The part about Galaxy Formation from Gamma Radiation Events is NOT that long! If you want to see how the universe is working as a whole...How "SPACE", Gravity, gets here, and then how the galaxy formation inside that "SPACE" works, then yes, you will have to read the whole thing

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

Are you an amateur, Russ? It is so doubtful that any "paper" could answer all the questions that yours claims to! Especially coming from someone NOT the likes of Ed Witten.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Yes I am. Which evidently is the reason that I was able to 'see' a correlation that mainstream or the Anti-BBer's have not been able to for 50+ years. Well actually, to be more fair, that either side has not able to see since 1997, when it first presented itself, because of preconcieved ideas on both sides.

So, you read it? Do you have direct and pertinent questions, Or is this just another 'assumption'!
It certainly does NOT answer "ALL" the questions, but it at least will put us on the right track to begin to answer many of those questions. It puts on the right track to answer how Galaxies develope, as the Nuker Team has identified, with the MBH's as the birth of the galaxy. But of course they are trying to do that with a Big Bang beginning, and so are trying to do it with Hydrogen Clouds as the onset.........that's NOT the way it happens!

The stars on the outer edges of galaxies cannot and do not feel the gravity of the MBH's. However, when they plugged in values for how fast the stars were moving in particular galaxies, and then plugged in the value for the mass of the MBH's for those galaxies, they found a relationship that should be impossible. So since the stars cannot feels the MBH's gravity, there should be no relationship between the mass of the black hole and their speed out at the edges especially.

But there was in every case! Which can only mean that the MBH is intimately related to the BEGINNING of the formation of the galaxies.

So, quite simply, when you do a time reversal/lookback of a galaxy (which is the correct lookback, not the whole Universe), and you shrink a galaxy down to a point, taking it back to its gaseous state HI/He, and then back to its Electrons/Protons, and then back to its High Energy Radiation and then to the event that CAUSES this Radiation, you can then 'see', how when the MBH is being made, that the Torque on Space/Time where this is happening, rotates the Electrons/Protons>HI/He in the Spiral shape that is being made in Space/time. So, then you can see how all the Hydrogen for a galaxy has its speed set before any stars are ever made!!!!

To see this, just look at the First Dark Matter Galaxy Found and the Ghost Galaxy, which I have refered to many, many times, but no body wants to take with any seriousness what-so-ever!!!

http://kencroswell.com/FirstDarkGalaxy.html
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

The stars in the outer part of these galaxies will be directly correlated to the mass of their MBH's as well, but these do NOT fit how the Nuker Team says that the MBH or the Galaxy has formed!

I am kind of surprised that you used a String/"M" theorist to prove your point, but that's fine, probably even better...for me

Ed Witten is an absolutely brilliant man, and when he Unified the 5 String Theories/Solutions using 10 dimensions, and showed that they were all different kinds of solutions when using 11 Dimensions (6 micro, 3+1, with the 11th being our universe), that will turnout to be one of the greatest findings since the SMBH's!
But so too are Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, Preskill to name just a few, and I do NOT CLAIM to have anywhere near their mental capacity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT, what I do claim, is that I have found valid and tight correlations to how galaxies are formed! This shows that the Radiation that makes galaxies gets here at the beginning of each galaxies life.

So, "IF" this is true, then the reason that String/"M" Theory can't be shown to work, and the reason that Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, and Preskill and all the others working on Black Holes, cannot Unify GR and QFT becomes pretty obvious.

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

This is an attitude that is pretty common among ATM proponents, and I think it's a serious mistake. I really hope you won't take this next comment too personally, but I can't figure out any other way to phrase it. There are always more than just two possibilities, and the fact that you can't see any other possibilities seems like a lack of imagination. Just off the top of my head, in addition to those two, there could be some variation on the steady state model, where matter appears over time, but in minute quantities throughout the universe rather than an entire galaxy-worth at a time. Narlikar has proposed a quasi-steady state model, which has some features in common with your idea (that there are scattered ongoing "mini-bangs" throughout the universe), but differs on some important points (those "mini-bangs" are not linked to GRB's, for example). Of course, there are plenty of people (Arp comes to mind) who dispute that the observed cosmological redshifts are recessional (or at least, that there might be a significant intrinsic portion to them). If they turned out to be correct, that could change the view of the universe dramatically. There are a number of unusual universes that would work with general relativity, such as one that collapses from infinity to a minimum scale factor, and then "bounces" and begins expanding again. There are plenty of others that I've missed.

Anyway, the big problem with adopting this attitude is that there's a tendency to concentrate on trying to discredit the mainstream view, since if the mainstream view is wrong, your own idea must be right be default. That's not how science works. You'd do better to spend the time developing quantitative demonstrations that your own model matches observations.

That's just as misleading. That suggests that none of the possible models really works

Can you cite a source for this? Most papers I've seen that discuss this usually start with one or more stellar black holes as the source. I suppose primordial black holes aren't ruled out, but we don't have any real observational evidence that primordial black holes actually exist, let alone that they're responsible for forming the central black holes we see see in galaxies.

We also know that large stars can become black holes (in the case of very large stars, that happens quite quickly as far as stellar timescales go). And in the presence of infalling material, such a black hole could grow pretty rapidly. We also have both theoretical and observational evidence that black holes can merge.

No, it's one possibility, along with the others I listed. All of them are workable as models, and there's not even a requirement that all of them be formed exactly the same way. From the papers they've written, the Nuker team clearly thinks that black holes grow along with their host galaxies.

I'm saying that is one possibility.

If you think it won't work if they try this with LSB's nad BCD's, the way to actually show that would be to apply their methodology to some of those galaxies, and actually show that it doesn't work. Just claiming that it won't hold up is not sufficient.

What they would find is that the galaxy cannot get that small, because the angular momentum would be too high. Try working it out, and you might be the one who is amazed.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Do you have any evidence that either of these even has a central black hole, let alone an estimate of its mass? Until you do, it's a bold prediction* to be sure, but your claim that there must be one there certainly cannot be used as evidence for your idea.

* Actually, I have to give you credit for being quite risky, since it puts your own idea out on a limb if they aren't there, but the existence of black holes in one or both of these would not hurt the mainstream model at all.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

forgive me for asking perhaps an Ill informed question Russ but if the white hole is indeed far away from the "charged" black-hole why is energy-matter, from around the black-hole( and/or the white for that matter) vortex not attracted too and therefore show up around the full depth of the vortex? for surely between each hole is a vortex, which extends through space and matter, until they meet. would not the vortex along its length attract matter in the intervening space between each hole?

No, I didn't take it personally, and I know exactly what you mean. I think you may have got some wrong impressions here because this tack was designed to get Michael to stop just making stuff up off the top of his head!

But, as far as I can see, if GR is a correct way to show how the universe is working according to the laws of Nature (Whatever those may be for a consistent picture), then the universe either started from a Naked Singularity, as the Big Bang says, OR it starts from the OTHER END, the Singularity ib the MBH's and what they are releasing to make our space. (and I have read many, many, many of the ones out there)

Yes, I am very familiar, and it's really too bad that Fred Hoyle is not still with us!
He actually said that there should be Trillions of "Mini-Bangs", BUT he and all/most of the QSSC Anti-BBer's DON"T believe in what??? Naked Singularities/GR/BH's or SMBH's!

Which is why I said this in my paper..."If Fred Hoyle had just looked at what might be ‘right’ about GR, he could have got this!!! If anyone who was on the Big Bang side would have looked at how they could have applied GR to Fred’s Idea, they could have got this!!!" That is until 1997. Neither camp was even close to ready (both sides were wayy too convinced that they were right and the other was wrong) to see the 'real' potential for cosmic understanding!

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