Quasars and supernova fires

A quasar is a very young galaxy. How can quasar produce the energy of 1,000 galaxies in a region of space 100,000 times smaller than a galaxy? Two theories have been proposed by astronomers to explain the phenomenon. The most popular is the Black hole theory; the other is the Supernova Cluster theory. This paper will provide support for the Supernova Cluster theory.

If the expansion of space is truly uniform, as proposed by the uniform expansion theory (www.uniformexpansion.com ) then matter itself expands with the expansion of space. Rather than stop the expansion of space at the boundary of galaxies, matter itself is allowed to expand. This means that objects in the past were denser. If this were the case, then the effect of gravity would be greater in the past. If the effect of gravity were greater in the past, the rate of energy production within stars would dramatically increase, enough to account for the observed energy production within quasars. Since the expansion of space includes galaxies themselves, in the past they were smaller and denser, which will account for the small region of space that the energy is observed to be coming from.

The following outline describes the ideas of this posting.
1. Stars have an intrinsic limiting size since they nova or supernova once they reach critical mass.
2. Since the effect of gravity was greater in the past, it takes less mass to form a star in the past.
3. Since the effect of mass is also increased by the motion in the unobserved dimension, it takes even less mass to form a star in the past.
4. Given the present amount of matter, it then becomes predictable as to how many stars could have formed at various times in the past.
5. Since galaxies were also smaller in the past, the result is an increased number of stars in a smaller appearing region of space.
6. The density of these stars results in vast numbers of novas and supernovas.

Those who wish to skip the details of the application of the theory may just want to read the last few paragraphs which describe a galaxy very early in it’s evolution.

The maximum size of a star.

There is a limit to the size of stars. Once they get too big, they to blow up or disappear in a black hole, if you believe in black holes. Most stars, when they reach critical mass, will explode. A black hole will need the accumulated cores of several neutron stars to form. (Although theoretical models creating such black holes as the result of a supernova do exist). If most stars just explode, then stars will tend to get only so big, blow up, and if they get big enough, they then blow up again. The fact that our Earth has deposits of gold and radioactive elements is evidence of this explosive era in galactic evolution.

If the effect of gravity were greater in the past, then the mass or size of the stars that nova or supernova would be decreased by the amount that the gravitational effect is increased. Also, according to the proposed theory, the effect of mass was also greater due to motion in the “unobserved” dimension, (which results in scalar types of effects). (www.unifomexpansion.com) This translates to the following example, If in the past the effect of gravity was greater by 10 times due to a denser state of matter, the effect of mass would also be increased another 10 times due to the increase in the effect of mass, which is the result of motion in the “unobserved dimension”. The overall effect, when comparing today’s gravitational relationship to what it was in the past, is a hundred fold increase associated with gravitational effects, which is called the “combined gravitational constant”.

If one assumes an 8 billion year old universe, when the universe was 1 billion years old, the effect of gravity was 16 times what it is today. (From an earlier posting “Is the gravitational constant constant?) Combine this effect with the increased mass associated with motion in the unobserved dimension, the net result in the increase in the “ combined gravitational constant” would amount to an increase of 256 times. (In the posting “Is the gravitational constant constant”, I only included the effect due to expansion, not the effect associated with motion in the unobserved dimension) This means that if our sun were broken into 256 equal size masses, they all would burn as brightly as our sun when the universe was 1 billion years old in an eight billion year old universe. Each new mini sun would be about 1/6 the size of our sun, with an energy output of about 1/40 of our sun. Since there are 256 of these mini-suns, the net effect is an overall increase in luminosity of 6.35 times. The effect is even more pronounced if an earlier age of formation is allowed.

Increase in the effect of gravity at various times in an 8 billion year old universe.
(The formulas used to establish these figures may be found at www.uniformexpansion.com )

Years ago…………….Proportional increase in “gravitational constant”
4 billion years ago;….Effect of gravity 2.5 times
6 billion years ago;….Effect of gravity 6.3 times
7 billion years ago;….Effect of gravity 16 times
7.5 x 10^9……………....Effect of gravity 40 times (Universe 500,000,000 years old)
7.9 x 10^9…………………………345 times (Universe 100 million years old)
7.99 x 10^9………………………7,400 times (Universe 10 million years old)
7,999,999,999…..............16,000,000,000,000 times (Universe 1 year old)

Squaring the increased effect of gravity to account for the increase effect of mass due to motion in the unobserved dimension yields the number of stars that can form from one “present” solar mass. Also listed is the size reduction of the star, (and everything else), and the net increase in overall luminosity due to an increased number of stars. Assume present age of universe is 8 billion years.

(The formulas used are from the uniform expansion theory and basic geometric relationships ( the surface area varies to the square of the size and the volume varies to the cube of the size, increasing the surface area increases the overall luminosity)

If a star has an intrinsic size based upon mass and the effect of gravity, then as the effect of gravity increases on the same amount of mass, the number of stars would increase. As the number of stars increase, there is a net gain in luminosity due to the increased surface area. The following list illustrates how the mass of a star of today would appear at various ages of the universe.

Age of universe….. “G”^2 and # of stars ….Size/Sun… luminosity gain.
4 billion years old……………………..........6.3……0.5……………….....1.8
2 billion years old……….……………..........40……0.3……………….....3.2
1 billion years old……………….…...........256……0.16 …………….6.35
500 million years…………………..........1,600……0.085……………....11.7
100 million year old…………….......119,000……0.044 …………..23
10 million years old……….......55,000,000……0.0026 ………...380
1 million years old……….......2.5 x 10^10……0.00034…………....2900
1 year old……………………........2.5 x 10^56….1.6 x 10^-19……..6.3 x 10^18

The above shows that the mass equivalent of one solar mass can break down to a tremendous number of stars with a dramatic increase in luminosity.

What is not shown in this relationship is that the actual temperature of the universe is increasing radically as we look at earlier and early ages. This temperature will prevent matter, despite the increased attraction, to form even into atoms. As a rough estimate, the minimum age where temperatures cool enough for matter to form is at about 1 million years of age. (A more exact calculation needs to be done).

Since the expansion of space is uniform, galaxies were actually smaller in the past. Reducing the size of galaxies accordingly.

Ratios of Time formula for size
L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)

For 1 billion year old universe, size of galaxy should be reduced
L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) = (8 /1) ^ (2/3) = 4 ; Size of galaxy was 1/4 smaller.

For 500 million year old universe, size of galaxy should be
L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) = (8 /.5) ^ (2/3) = 6.35 ; Size of galaxy was 1/6 smaller.

For 100 million year old universe, size of galaxy should be
L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) = (8 /.1) ^ (2/3) = 18.6 ; Size of galaxy was 1/19 smaller

For a 10 million year old universe, the size of the galaxy should be
L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) = (8 /.01) ^ (2/3) = 86 ; Size of galaxy was 1/86 smaller

For a 1 million year old universe, the size of the galaxy should be
L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) = (8000) ^ (2/3) = 16000 ; Size of galaxy was 1/16000 smaller
(A nucleus of a galaxy that is 30,000 light years now, would be only about 2 light years across then)

How would these relationships effect the stellar distribution of stars within a galaxy? If we start with a galaxy with a nucleus like our own of 10 million per cubic light year (Explorations an introduction to astronomy Thomas T Arny 2002), the density would probably be too high since our galaxy includes several other smaller galaxies and perhaps some gravitational collapsing towards the core. For a rough estimate the core density in our typical galaxy of only 1 million stars per cubic light year will be assumed, which is 1/10 the density of our galaxy’s core.

Assume 1,000,000 stars / cubic light year. 100 stars per light year, average distance between stars 632 AU.

At 1 billion years of age the galaxy would be denser and there would be more stars.
1,000,000 stars x 245 4 times smaller 2500 stars per light year, average distance 25 AU

At 500 million years of age the galaxy would be denser and there would be more stars
1,000,000 stars x 1600 6.35 times smaller 7400 stars/ly average distance 8.5 A

At 100 million years of age the galaxy would be denser and there would be more stars
1,000,000 stars x 119,000 18.6 times smaller; 13,000 stars/ly avg dist. 4.9 A..U.

At 10 million years of age the galaxy would be denser and there would be more stars
1,000,000 stars x 55,000,000 86 times smaller; 423,000 stars/ly avg dist 0.15 A.U.

At 1 million years of age the galaxy would be denser and there would be more stars
1,000,000 stars x 25 x 10^10 16,000 times smaller 10,000,000,000 stars/ly avg dist 0.0000063 A.U.
940,000 meters

(It should be noted that 8 billion year old universe is not the best fit to observation; A better fit would be achieved with a 6.5 billion year old universe, with a 5 million year date for the formation of early galaxies. The concept is at least there. I just wonder how many would even consider an age reading a paper that proposes that the age of the universe is just 6.5 billion years old?)

What would the nucleus of a galaxy look like at about 1 million years of age?

An average star glowing like our sun would be about 5,000 meters in size or 3 miles across . If we could stand on one of these stars and look around, we would see, on average, 6 close stars, similarly sized, about 1,000 meters, or 600 miles away. They would appear to be about 1/2 the size of our sun. Beyond these close stars, we would see about 24 stars that are 1/4 the observed size of our sun. Despite over 10^20 stars surrounding us, it is impossible to see more than few thousand stars. Interstellar dust and debris confine our vision to a brightly lit and glowing red sky that flashes as if by lightning.

The close proximity of stars to one another, with the large amount of interstellar debris, results in novas and supernovas with an astonishing frequency, many every hour. Occasionally when a star explodes, the radiation released would spread to other nearby stars, inducing them to also explode, and this would result in a chain reaction of hundreds of thousands of stars blazing in an incredible inferno. The ash remains of these wild star fires become the cores for the next generation of stars.

This is a quasar.

Snowflake

Make up your own rules of the universe, and create your very own. Isn't this fun...?

This isn't what scientists do.

Hi Spaceman Spiff

Thanks for your response.

And no, it isn’t fun.

The discovery that the expansion of space conforms to a specific algebraic relationship that preserves the necessary balance between celestial and atomic systems was incredibly exciting. The sense of discovery was amazing. But if you try to tell anyone else, forget it. I have been ignored, told I am wrong because it is too simple, and generally been considered some kind of annoying distraction. A pest. The look of distain I have received from professional astronomers whom I have asked to review the theory I will never forget.

What do scientists do? They hurt others, then ignore them.

Snowflake

Spaceman Spiff

I apologize for the tone in my response. Guess about some issues I am a little sensitive. The fact that an Astronomer hosts this site, and the fact that you even bother to read anything is proof that consideration to others is given here.

If I am wrong, explain why I am wrong. I will listen.

I say it is wrong to stop the expansion of space-time at the boundary of galaxies.

Will you listen?

Snowflake

Supernovas aren't fires.

Looks very numerological. Eddington would be proud. Unfortunately, unless you're willing to rewrite our theories of the atom, fusion, radioactivity etc., it's not particularly convincing.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

I notice at the end of your extensive website you state....

If you want to put forward a scientific theory, you're going to lose a lot of credibility if you include your religious beliefs.

As to your theory....

Your very first claim - "A quasar is a young galaxy" - is questionable and unsupported. I have difficulty slogging through a lot of subsequent details after noticing that the very first claim is questionable and unsupported!

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

If everywhere has the same perspective (Which, relativistically, they should), the there's nothing special about the Earth, so it's not worth calling it or anything else the centre.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Cougar

“And thus much concerning God; to discourse of who from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to natural philosophy”

This quote is how Newton finished his Principia.

snowflake

God has been explored in many senses by scientists, including the great Stephen Hawking (on a theory of everything: "For then we would know the mind of God"). But they do not base their science on their theology; they base their theology on their science.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Don't forget what century Newton lived in.... and how much prevailing thoughts and world-views can change in 300 or 400 years.

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

It's worth bearing in mind that, in his time, Newton's theories were criticised by the Church for having an "absolute" reference point. He himself knew this was a failure of the theory, but that it was a necessary simplification for the theory to be practically used. These days, the who-likes-fixed-reference-point malarkey is all topsey-turvey.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Ok, apoloogy accepted. Look at my reply to your "idea" in the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram and Stellar Evolution thread.

The first thing you need to do is find out what we DO understand about the laws of nature. Then, if you are still willing to go to bat against the expanding universe paradigm, you need to understand what it says (based upon evidence) and what it doesn't say. You need to familiarize yourself with all of the bodies of evidence in favor, as well as know where it remains incomplete.

The reason for the disdain is because the astronomer (as myself) who comes across your idea immediately recognizes that you haven't bothered to find out what we do know about nature, and you've simply conjured up some idea out of thin air (i.e., doesn't conform to known laws of nature and/or observed bodies of evidence). If the first words describing your "idea" don't even conform to the collective bodies of evidence, then why should any astronomer pay attention?

Science IS NOT a democracy of ideas. Get that out of your head. Ideas are only as good as the body of evidence behind them and their ability to predict the behavior of nature. Lacking these, such an idea is worthless to science. At the same time, no "science book" ever becomes closed. Later data and physical understanding may cause us to recognize a more general, a more accurate way of describing a phenomenon of nature.

Oh, and one other thing. The validity of an idea (hypothesis, what have you) in science does not rest upon authority, no matter who says what. Pseudoscience and religion rely on authority, science does not. Science lets nature do the talking; scientists simply try to listen.

I'll leave you with a , and hope that you'll take the opportunity to learn what you can from this BB.