THE BIRTH OF A GALAXY

Please click first.
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

In the standard model, galaxy formation is thought to be either “bottom up” or “top down”. The timeline for this formation through the merging of proto-galaxies, in the far universe, is being pushed farther and farther back, closer to the Big Bang, while in the last 20 or so years, younger and younger galaxies have been found nearby. Because of this, galaxy formation has become even more of a mystery, and remains, one of the biggest questions in cosmology today.

A tremendous amount of very hard work has been done modeling all the different aspects of how Einsteins General Relativity can fit the good observational evidence of just how our universe works, and is well trusted, as well it should be.
I once made the statement that E=MC^2 will become far more famous than it already is, and now I am extending that, to include all of GR, and the following
will certainly test mainstreams actual level of trust in it. A lot of the very hard work that has been done in GR, is the modeling of the ‘singularity’, the proposed Friedmann “naked” singularity (Big Bang Singularity) and the black holes and the ‘singularities’ that reside in them. 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

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.

So, what would be wrong with the concept that the “Singularity” inside the SMBH is responsible for actually making the galaxy that it is in?

Intrigued? As well you should be! Because the answer is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this concept, considering the fact that this is the only place where we really know there are singularities (other than the stellar ones)!

So, here is precisely how a Galaxy is born.

Considering a Kerr SMBH in the center of a galaxy
From this site;http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10

I believe that most people see this as the most correct configuration,
black hole/ring singularity/worm hole/white hole, and as such, since the Baryonic Matter has gone through the black hole and the singularity, the Matter has been spaghettified, so the white hole could not be spewing Baryonic Matter.

So, realizing that many people have also read/heard about this second White Hole solution, when ever anyone would suggest that White Holes spewed Baryonic Matter I would of course try to explain that the other White Hole was the correct one, and that White Holes don’t spew Baryonic Matter once the Matter has gone through the black hole.

Then, one night, a couple of weeks ago, after reading a response on the forum about singularities…

It finally dawned on me, that the time reversed solution, was actually the
Time frame before the singularity was in the black hole, and that it actually was spewing what would become Baryonic Matter…it had just been “miss named”, it wasn’t really a White Hole at all…it was a

NAKED SINGULARITY


Now, this makes much more sense, since it has always bothered me that there
were 2 solutions for the white hole, which just made it seem like there was something wrong. What is absolutely incredible to me though, is that for over a year I have been saying, “that the only thing powerful enough to make a SMBH is a Naked Singularity”, and yet every time someone would suggest that “White Holes” spewed Baryonic matter, I would say…no they can’t as per the explanation above. This is absolutely a supreme example of how our definition of words affects our concepts!

So, now what do you think of the concept that the singularity in the black hole at the center of galaxies is responsible for making that galaxy? Like I said, it is the only place where we are ‘Relatively’ sure (pun intended) that Singularities exist (except the stellar ones). When you think about it, this is the simplest solution, and I won’t go into all the unanswered questions of how SMBH’s are made or the problems of galaxy formation, they are all well known.

Now, what would be the good observational evidences when this would occur? First, we would see (now that we can) a very bright light (the singularity starting that galaxies life) that could be seen, randomly across the sky, from clear across the universe, and after that light cooled enough to fade completely, what would we expect to see?

This is precisely what we would see!

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2896

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. Then it may take several millions of years for it to start making enough stars for us to see it. When we could see it, what would we expect to see? This is precisely what we would see.

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

The Ghost Galaxy is a perfect example for revealing how galaxies evolve from the Dark Matter galaxy, to almost first starlight (we need to keep looking at fainter and fainter LSB’s to see ‘first starlight’). 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.

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. Note; Obviously, some of the ‘red’ LSB’s may be very old and therefore low surface bright galaxies.

I have kept this as short as possible and just covered the main points of how a galaxy is born, so that hopefully everyone will be able to see the simple evolutionary paths that galaxy formations take. I have a lot more evidence to back up, that this is the way that the galaxies come into our universe and evolve!

Until you see and understand that the galaxies get here one at a time, it is virtually impossible to make sense out of the Dark part of our universe.

Russ Thompson
<SCRIPT SRC="https://www.icreateditfirst.com/servlet/getSeal?ID=RT-PSDZYH"></SCRIPT>


Russt51@aol.com
916-730-7879 after 3pm PST

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

Thread moved, from Astronomy, to ATM.

What evidence is there that this cloud of hydrogen contains a black hole?

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

I think I know where you will go with this Cougar, but we'll see.

First of all I cheated.

Second, if you start this, I fully expect you to continue, and to defend any statements that you might make along the way, fair enough?

When I say I cheated, I mean that I already knew the answer (that it did contained a SMBH) before I even found the article/paper!

So, when I saw that article/paper, I knew what the "First Dark Matter Galaxy Found" was! A New galaxy that had been born sometime in the last 1 year to possibly 100 to 300 thousand years depending on how long it takes to cool enough to follow basically the same timeline the Big Bang says that it took for Hydrogen atoms to become 'stable', which is 300 thousand years in the Big Bang timeline. And at the same time the SMBH is gathering the Hydrogen into the galaxy shape you see for the Ghost galaxy, until the core can 'fire up' and begin the star making process.

But yes, without a lit up accretion disc, the job of of finding and identifying the event horizon, or the gravitational center for this spinning Hydrogen is nothing less than daunting. However, if this can be done, it would certainly be a huge step forward in determining many things!

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

RussT are you saying that matter is created in a gamma ray burst from a naked singularity, forming a galaxy with a SMBH?

That is precisely what I am saying!

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

RussT that's very interesting. (It's slightly different than my scenario but it may boil down to the same thing.) It leads to me wonder whether, if "vacuum energy" is the energy of the naked singularity, there would be a small leftover cosmologicial constant.

Well I hate to point out a few flaws. But i will anyway! hehe

The dark galaxy is a definate find. If this is an example of how new dwarf galaxies typically from then we could probably account for much of the missing dark matter, if we can find a few more of them.

But as far as what starts the star triggering process in a galaxy, I think it's a safe bet to say that that begins by gravitational forces during a close pass with another galaxy. There are plenty of examples of this on Hubble Site of galaxies undergoing a star formation burst.

Although I'm not discluding your theroy, it is a less likely method of triggering star formation in a new galaxy.

My gut feeling is that these dark dwarf galaxies will account for about 10% of the missing mass of the universe.

I devoutly hope someone thinks of using that same detection process in some of the dark area's between the galaxy clusters. We might find some dark mega clusters out there.

As to the making of the new galaxy itself, I don't think a naked sigularity built the matter from a GRB. Gamma rays are the most energetic form of light, and less likely to be absorbed or lose thier energy to mass conversion then other forms of light.

However can you site any experiments where light to mass conversion has been done or attempted? I can't recall any such thing, but I'm no expert.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

This is much more complicated than just that.

The issues for the missing Dark Matter for galaxy rotation amd cluster dynamics is different than the Critical Density missing Matter, and I am not gong into the DM/DE in this thread! However, your statement for the missing Critical Matter for Omega = 1, is well founded, and what I am showing will shed a whole new light on that.

Yes, that is what has been thought all along, which is a direct result of the current paradigm, that galaxies form 'bottom up' or 'top down' through galaxy or proto-galaxy mergers.

So where are the clusters of stars meging to form the Ghost galaxy? and it says that is all by itself, no galaxy perturbation.

Here are other examples.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406205
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/backyard.html
It's not just the dwarfs as the second link above shows, plus I have other examples. Also, if you noticed in the OP, the Ghost Galaxy isn't really a dwarf!
Plus, it will wind up being way more than just 10%!

I think I said somewhere in here once, that we can now learn much more from looking into the darkness, than we can by looking at the brightest stuff. But, they are looking everywhere, and figuring out the Quasars is very important also!

Actually, dgavin, this is not true. The higher GEV energy gamma rays are mostly absorbed and almost all The TEV energy gamma rays are absorbed before they reach the earth, and then the ones that do are further absorbed/interact with the atmosphere, and so cannot reach ground telescopes.

Thanks for your response. Hope this helps clear a few things up.

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

Thick-Skinned Gravastars Vie to Replace Black Holes, in Theory

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rs_020423.html

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Great, so start your own thread on that; you and czeslaw can solve all of the problems of the universe together!

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

Except that you haven't answered Cougar's question. That is, you haven't provided any evidence that there is a black hole at the center of the dark galaxy. And, for the ghost galaxy and others, you seem to be implying that the shape of the galaxy is dominated by the black hole. That's not actually the case. Although the central black hole is pretty massive, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of a galaxy. The stars orbit their common center of mass.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Obviously this cannot be accomplished yet, however, it certainly can be infered, due to the very fact that they clasified this as a galaxy. Other wise they would have reported that they had found a big glob of ill formed Hydrogen. The rotation curves have been reported to fit MOND better for this and the LSB galaxies. Infering that there is a Massive black hole here (it is a galaxy, right?) makes just as much if not way more sense than...since all the Hydrogen was 'supposedly' spread out by inflation, across the universe, that the galaxies must have formed through some kind of merger process!

I am more than just implying this. I am showing that when the Naked Singularity goes off, that it is spewing Gamma Radiation and can be seen clear across the universe, randomly across the sky, and at the same time MAKING the massive black hole. That's why I told Cougar, I cheated! I already knew that the massive balck hole was there! In other words, this Dark Matter Galaxy is an absolute prediction of what should appear if my orginal model is correct!

Grey, You are thinking here about the galaxy after some/most/all it's stars are formed!

I believe it is currently thought that the mass of a galaxy full of Hydrogen would be the same as the mass of a galaxy full of stars. I have asked this before in Q&A and never got a satisfactory answer, but this has to be absoluely wrong. Just think of a galaxy full of only Blue 1st generation stars, now take the same galaxy 10 billion years later...how much more massive is it then after all that metalicity is added??? By the same token, is a galaxy full of Hydrogen I, the same mass as a galaxy full of Hydrogen II???

The other point to this, the massive black holes affect on a cloud of Hydrogen I surrounding it, as it gathers it back in after the burst has never been modeled, because it has never been considered! As I said above, the massive black hole has some 200 to 300 thousand years to influence the shape of that Hydrogen I.

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

Many galaxies have been observed to have massive black holes at their core. That does not mean it is necessarily true of all of them, since there are other galaxies that do not have observable black holes. They are calling it a dark galaxy and not just a cloud of hydrogen because it has a mass typical of a galaxy. So, you agree that you have no observational evidence for a black hole at the center of this galaxy? Evidence of a black hole would at least be consistent with your idea, but the lack of one is actually contrary evidence. It doesn't kill it right off, but you'll need to come up with an explanation for why there is not one observed. In the cases where we see galaxies that don't seem to have central black holes, it is certainly possible that they are there, but quiescent, having already pulled in all the nearby matter. But in this case, by your theory, this is a new young galaxy and the matter all came from the center in the first place, so there should be plenty of material for a central black hole to consume. Why don't we see one?

Except that we've agreed that the existence of a black hole is still a supposition on your part. Until there's some experimental evidence, you certainly cannot use that as support for your idea. You also haven't actually shown that this could produce a galaxy. 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.

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.

Not a bit. Technically, it's probably slightly less massive, since creating those metals is done by converting matter into light, which then leaves the galaxy. Sure, the individual atoms may be heavier on average, but there are fewer atoms than there were before.

Of course, except for the very small difference in ionization energy. It's not like the electrons aren't there, it's just that they aren't bound. Why would the mass be different?

That's a really small amount of time on a galactic scale. And although a supermassive black hole is quite large, it's still quite small on the galactic scale. A typical central black hole seems to have a mass on the order of a few million solar masses. But a typical good sized galaxy has a mass on the order of a few hundred billion solar masses, about five orders of magnitude more. Even if we assume that the mass initially came from the central core, once that has happened, its motion will be governed by the gravitational effects of the whole thing, and the central black hole will only be a very small portion of that.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

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.

There is an 'or' in my statement above, but still a valid question. So, yes, since we can see it, that has to mean that it has become stable, and then the 'or' would apply, which means that the black hole has not had time enough to gather the H I together enough to start star formation.
One thing to note here, I do not expect the cooling time for the H I to become stable to be as long as the BBN, since the whole universe is not super heated. So the cooling could be Much quicker, but how long it would actually take to start making enough stars so we can see them will definitely be hotly debated. There are millions more of these out there, scattered throught the universe.
And since we are talking about when we can see the stars of newly formed (not from primordial gas!) galaxies, and since we have found so many LSB's and BCD's and Malin I's and Cepheus I's, There are also millions more of these that haven't even had time for there light to reach us yet, and when all the numbers are added up, this will be the mising Baryonic Matter for Omega = 1, and will definitely slow the huge speeds the galaxies are receding away from us, but I still believe that the SN 1a data is probably correct, and the expansion is accelerating, just slower than currently thought.

I will predict, that the next consession the Big Bang has to make is that they did not all form way back in the early universe on the time line they have always claimed and then soon after they will have to say that 'somehow', galaixies form differently now, than they did then, because there is no evidence of galaxy interaction for most of these LSB's and BCD's!

http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~webgk/ws98/thuan_r.html
As I said above, this is NOT primordial gas!

http://www.usm.lmu.de:81/people/hopp/dw.html

As to the 'spinning up' of the galaxy by the SMBH....let me ask you this.

If you took out "ALL" of the Baryonic Matter of our observable universe R=13 billion light years, would our observable universe have any gravity in it???

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

To what extent have you got numbers, equations, math, and stuff to back up your (ATM) claims, here in this thread, RussT?

interesting (to your last paragrph) but is there not a neutrality between, in the end, between matter and antimatter?

or are you saying quarks are the reason for gravity?

or are you saying quarks are the reason for gravity?


No.

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

I wasn't asking about the star formation, I was asking about the visibility of the central black hole. There doesn't seem to be a hole in the center of the gas, nor enough material to block our view of the center, so there should be a black hole with plenty of material to fall in. Why don't we see one?

Perhaps. But then why don't we detect them? We're doing the sorts of surveys that found VIRGOHI21 all the time, why is this one such a novelty?

That's your claim, but it's unsupported by any evidence. That is, you can suggest that there are many such galaxies, but you cannot use the (supposed) existence of such as evidence for your idea. If the matter density is so much higher, though, why don't we see that locally? Maybe the very distant galaxies have only recently formed, so we can't see them yet, but if there were that much matter in the universe, surely we'd see it in and around the local group. Yet all kinds of studies looking for various types of baryonic dark matter (gas, dust, small compact objects, rogue planets, brown dwarfs, black holes, etc.) have put constraints on the amounts that are much lower than what we'd need for the observed rotation curve of our galaxy.

As for the type Ia supernova data, I'm confused by your claim. That's empirical data. Unless you think there's some other reason for the redshift than cosmological expansion, how could it be wrong? And if you do think there's a different reason for observed redshifts, why should we necessarily take the supernova data as a serious measure of expansion at all?

I'm a little confused. There's no assertion from the big bang model that all galaxies should have formed at the same time, or that there shouldn't be glactic formation going on right now. Where did you get that idea. Actually, I had pointed out on the Singularity thread (though maybe it's better answered here) that this is a problem with your own model. From general relativity, white holes cannot be formed, they have to have always existed. That is, if they exist at all, they have to be primordial, created as part of the big bang. So why do we see galaxies still forming now? Shouldn't they all have been created long ago?

The author of that paper is making exactly the opposite claim, that this is a good way to measure primordial helium abundance. And the galaxies here seem to be standard BCD's that have formed on a pretty typical schedule, with no evidence that they have unusual structure like NGC 2415. I was asking for evidence that there are "many" galaxies that have formed that are "not even close" to the big bang's expected timeline or design. I appreciate that you actually provided links to papers, but I don't see how these support your claims at all.

As far as we know, yes. Perhaps you could make it clear what you are thinking in this regard, and how this question is linked to the question of a black hole "spinning up" a galaxy.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

I acknowledge that this thread is not (directly) about any possible GRB source for the "RussT galaxies", so my question may be OT.

Should it be relevant, however, I would appreciate an answer.

In this 74-page GRB review paper, there are several sections on theoretical models of several types of GRBs and their afterglows. To what extent is the RussT view (of galaxies being born as/in a GRB) consistent with any of these theoretical models?

In the RussT view, what are the primary physical processes for the first ~ms, through the first ~s, to the first ~10⁵ s, in the GRBs which give rise to a galaxy?

Why do you think we should be able to see an accretion disc, if no stars have been made in this galaxy yet? Do you think that with no stars that we can see there, that with just some H I falling onto the accretion disc, that should enable us to see that at the distance it is?

First, I'm not sure what the range for the 21cm H I surveys is, and second, with 0 luminosity, how accurate are the red shift distances? Lastly, it is an absolutely immense universe out there.

But, once again, when it is shown that galaxies do get here one day at a time, it will become very obvious that there are all the galaxies I suggested.
Also, in the last 20 years they have found many more local galaxies (Virgo cluster) and just recently more dwarfs in the local group + a couple more large galaxies that I mentioned. The galaxy rotation dark matter is a different issue than the critical density missing mass.

If, as I'm showing, the Darkness was already here, the galaxies get here one day at a time, then as the universe was expanding by the Hubble constant, 'every' one billion years, 365 billion galaxies were added to the universe, and that is what slowed the universes expansion (galaxies being added to slow the expansion, is an absolutely logical and valid reason for the slowing!). Now, as more and more galaxies were added the universe may have just slowed to a crawl, or possibly stopped, or maybe even started contracting some, before the Cosmological Constant kicked in and began accelerating the original expansion. I saw in a Burbidge paper, that he refered to a possible 'hitch' in the expansion.
So, the 4 things that could affect the red shift are, 1. the Hubble flow obviously wasn't constant if galaxies were being added to slow it. 2. I am not sure how accurate the luminosity factors are since many were done with 'only' the HSB galaxies for so long and they have found a lot of the LSB's fairly recently. 3 Age of the universe factor. 4. Critical density factor.

I'm a little confused myself now. I thought that I had seen, at one time or another, in the timeline of the BB, that all the galaxies had to have formed in a certain epoch, in the early universe. I looked but couldn't find it, but I will look again. So, all these primordial SMBH's are wandering around looking for all this primordial H I???

It looks like I may have to xhange this to just 'design'. Look at the Ghost Galaxy again, and show me where the 'already made' stars, or a proto-galaxy is merging to form this galaxy!!!

Actually, I have just thought of this since we have started talking about it here. If there is already gravity in space (Non-Baryonic DM), and showing how that gets here is how "M" theory unify's gravity, then when the SMBH is formed, it is 'spinning' more than just itself! It is spinning the gravity around it, which is the dark matter halo, and how all the Gamma Radiation gets all brought back together as it is becoming the Hydrogen.

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

Yes, I did leave it out of this thread on purpose, but I will look it over, and let you know what I think. I have read 'a lot' of Meszaros's work, but the SWIFT stuff should be interseting.

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

Repeating my question (it seems to have been overlooked).

Why should the star formation make a difference? By the time the material is being pulled in, it's just gas anyway. The tidal forces outside a massive black hole aren't as strong as for a smaller one, but it's more than enough to pull a star apart.

The red shift distances are pretty accurate, since we know that the emissions are at 21 cm. We don't need stars to measure redshift. If we couldn't measure redshift that accurately, we wouldn't know that VIRGOHI21 was rotating fast enough that we needed dark matter to account for it. As for the immensity of the universe, sure. And you can postulate that it's filled with lots of things that we cannot see. But you can't claim those things that you can't see as evidence for your idea.

I feel like a broken record. This is the claim you're trying to support. You can't use that as evidence to support your claim. And again, if these galaxies all appear, but many of them are too far away so we can't see the light from them yet, why doesn't the density of galaxies go up linearly as we get closer? All those galaxies should exist nearby, too, and for the close ones, we should be able to see them.

Instruments have improved, so this is no surprise. Actually, the CDM theory of galactic formation predicted more dwarf galaxies than were originally observed. So the discovery that there are more than originally thought helps out that theory, too.

But why would that mean that the supernova data is wrong about the expansion rate. You said the expansion was probably accelerating, but slower than is thought. But the supernova data actually measure the expansion rate. There's no evidence from the data that the expansion rate slowed to crawl or reversed. So either they are correct about the expansion rate, or there's a problem with the data. Which do you think it is?

I don't know of anyone that says galaxy formation had to happen all at once, though it does look like the rate of formation may have changed over time. I still think this is more of a problem for your idea that for the mainstream. If there were all these primordial white holes, what keeps them all dormant for so long, when general relativity says that's not how a white hole behaves?

For the mainstream theory, though, there's no claim that the central black holes of galaxies were primordial, or that they went looking for clouds of hydrogen. It's the other way around. Clouds of gas (and dark matter) collapsed where there happened to be greater densities. The high density in the core is what is believed to have led to the formation of black holes. There are several models for how that might have happened, ranging from a single stellar black hole just pulling in enough matter over a long period of time, to multiple stellar black holes merging, to a really large cloud of gas just collapsing directly.

I think you have to get rid of the "many", too, since NGC 2415 is just a single example. Again, we look at the gas surrounding dwarf galaxies all the time, and this is the only example we know of that looks like this. It's a fascinating galaxy, and I don't know what's responsible for that spiral structure in the surrounding gas, but if all galaxies started this way, and all of the BCD's we see are galaxies in their early stages, then we should see this kind of thing much more frequently.

Are you still envisioning the black hole as the driver for this spinning? Because if so, this won't help. You still have to impart a huge amount of angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy to the galaxy, whether it's formed of dark matter or baryonic matter at the time. Try doing an order of magnitude calculation on how fast a central black hole would be spinning if it had the full angular momentum of the galaxy around it. I think you'll be surprised.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

interestingly though, i would have agreed.


hmmmm.........why?

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!

Also, I wanted this thread to stay on topic.

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

Spectrascope would show whether there was a SMBH at the center of the Dark Galaxy along with emissions of x-ray jets from both poles of the SMBH wouldn't it? So it should be detectable.

Why are you assuming that jets would be formed from the accretion disc of a SMBH where no stars have been able to form yet?

I fully agree that there has to be some way to be able to detect a SMBH in the Dark Galaxy, but you must remember, that not one ounce of nuclear fission/fussion has occured yet, and then once it has, how much of it has to occur before we can detect it that way?

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