Conjecture : Black holes created galaxies and galactic material does not create most central black holes.
Basis #1 : Galaxies often have black holes at their centers. It is not known what percentage of galaxies do not have black holes, but that percentage may be small.
Basis #2 : Stars are not formed by hydrogen gravitating into a clump, without a black hole being as close to the star as a galactic diameter. Hydrogen gas clouds are not dense enough to start fusion, and the gravity from the cloud is too weak to overcome the gas pressure of kinetic thermodynamics.
Speculation : black holes existed before stars and galaxies. Black holes twist the space-time continuum and eddies of space-time are flung off. These eddies create stars. Maybe.
Black Holes Created Galaxies : Speculation
-
Topic authorGlobeMaker
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 30.10.2005
- With us: 19 years 6 months
Black Holes Created Galaxies : Speculation
Your wish is my command line.
I suggest you read up on the subject, because your speculation is completely inaccurate based on what we know. Stars do not require black holes to form, and black holes do not 'fling off eddies in space time' as far as we know.
Yes, many galaxies do have black holes in the middle of them though.
Yes, many galaxies do have black holes in the middle of them though.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system
Malenfant wrote:Yes, many galaxies do have black holes in the middle of them though.
Sorry...
A question from the Brain-Dead... Many galaxies do have Black Holes in the
middle of them... So what's in the middle of galaxies that don't have Black
Holes in the middle of them? I thought that galaxies have to have
Black Holes in the middle of them. No? If this is the case, what then keeps
them orbiting a central mass? You mean they don't all orbit a central
mass?
Thanks, Bob
Brain-Dead Bob
Windows XP-SP2, 256Meg 1024x768 Resolution
Intel Celeron 1400 MHz CPU
Intel 82815 Graphics Controller
OpenGL Version: 1.1.2 - Build 4.13.01.3196
Celestia 1.4.1
Windows XP-SP2, 256Meg 1024x768 Resolution
Intel Celeron 1400 MHz CPU
Intel 82815 Graphics Controller
OpenGL Version: 1.1.2 - Build 4.13.01.3196
Celestia 1.4.1
-
Topic authorGlobeMaker
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 30.10.2005
- With us: 19 years 6 months
Thanks for responding to my ideas.
Malenfant said "I suggest you read up on the subject, because your speculation is completely inaccurate based on what we know. Stars do not require black holes to form, and black holes do not 'fling off eddies in space time' as far as we know. "
In the past I read books on these subjects, in the future I will read more about these subjects. As for now, I will elaborate on these ideas without delaying to get a PhD.
Black holes may produce gravity waves. Waves can have turbulence. Turbulence is sometimes in the form of eddies. That is why I used the phrase, "Black holes twist the space-time continuum and eddies of space-time are flung off." Scientists are trying to detect "any" gravity waves, so they are not yet equipped to detect turbulence in the waves. This turbulence, I speculate, is what gives the extra actions which allow hydrogen clouds to become dense enough to start fusion. Hydrogen alone cannot form a dense enough lump to start fusion, based on past readings for which I do not have a reference at hand. Maybe stars can form with elements in addition to hydrogen, but a hydrogen cloud alone is not capable of becoming densely packed enough to start fusion. The gas pressures will keep the H atoms so far apart that fusion cannot be sustained. Some extra action is needed to start the first stars, and I speculate that gravity waves from black holes provide localized turbulence in the space-time continuum which causes H collisions to be more likely.
"Stars do not require black holes to form" was stated by M. I agree, gas clouds that have heavy elements in them can start stars by concentrating the H and He. That I am not disputing. The new ideas I am proposing concern the birth of the early isolated galaxies, when only H was available.
Braindead said, "A question from the Brain-Dead... Many galaxies do have Black Holes in the middle of them... So what's in the middle of galaxies that don't have Black Holes in the middle of them? I thought that galaxies have to have Black Holes in the middle of them. No? If this is the case, what then keeps them orbiting a central mass? You mean they don't all orbit a central mass? "
We are in an old universe that has had collisions between galaxies. My idea is that every early isolated galaxy that started from H has a black hole. Those black holes in this category are older than galaxies and they create galaxies around them. My idea is in opposition to ideas that state that black holes are created in galaxies by collecting material.
Modern galaxies that do not have black holes are the result of collisions between galaxies. Those collisions caused some parts of galaxies to become separated from the parts of galaxies that retain the black hole. Those galaxies without black holes can have stars orbiting the center of mass, but they cannot have new stars created from pure Hydrogen, I speculate.
M said "your speculation is completely inaccurate based on what we know. ...as far as we know. " We do not know everything. Things that astronomers do know can be wrong, have been wrong many times in past years. Is it so wrong to jump ahead of experimentally proven facts about gravity waves, gravitons, and turbulence in the space-time continuum? I say no. It is appropriate to make a conjecture, and then, at a much later date, to gather experimental evidence to disprove or prove the conjecture.
Some modern theories are summaried here :
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... apse.shtml
As I read the 3 day old paper, I concluded that scientists are not sure H alone can form a star. Here is an excerpt, "Klein, McKee and Krumholz continue to refine their model to explain how radiation from large protostars escapes without blowing away all the infalling gas. For example, they have shown that some of the radiation can escape through cavities created by the jets observed to come out the poles of many stars in formation."
They are still working on it. Their models are trying to overcome practical reasons why stars cannot be created.
Here is another excerpt, "Real star formation regions have much more turbulence than assumed in the accretion model, and the turbulence does not quickly decay, as that model presumes. Some unknown processes, perhaps matter flowing out of protostars, keep the gases roiled up so that the core does not collapse quickly.".
Some unknown processes...... (turbulence in gravity waves from black holes, I speculate).
Here is a second article http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 10116.html
It says : "So while much has been learned over the past two decades about stellar evolution, as well as the interior of full-blown stars, their birth remains mysterious."
Malenfant said "I suggest you read up on the subject, because your speculation is completely inaccurate based on what we know. Stars do not require black holes to form, and black holes do not 'fling off eddies in space time' as far as we know. "
In the past I read books on these subjects, in the future I will read more about these subjects. As for now, I will elaborate on these ideas without delaying to get a PhD.
Black holes may produce gravity waves. Waves can have turbulence. Turbulence is sometimes in the form of eddies. That is why I used the phrase, "Black holes twist the space-time continuum and eddies of space-time are flung off." Scientists are trying to detect "any" gravity waves, so they are not yet equipped to detect turbulence in the waves. This turbulence, I speculate, is what gives the extra actions which allow hydrogen clouds to become dense enough to start fusion. Hydrogen alone cannot form a dense enough lump to start fusion, based on past readings for which I do not have a reference at hand. Maybe stars can form with elements in addition to hydrogen, but a hydrogen cloud alone is not capable of becoming densely packed enough to start fusion. The gas pressures will keep the H atoms so far apart that fusion cannot be sustained. Some extra action is needed to start the first stars, and I speculate that gravity waves from black holes provide localized turbulence in the space-time continuum which causes H collisions to be more likely.
"Stars do not require black holes to form" was stated by M. I agree, gas clouds that have heavy elements in them can start stars by concentrating the H and He. That I am not disputing. The new ideas I am proposing concern the birth of the early isolated galaxies, when only H was available.
Braindead said, "A question from the Brain-Dead... Many galaxies do have Black Holes in the middle of them... So what's in the middle of galaxies that don't have Black Holes in the middle of them? I thought that galaxies have to have Black Holes in the middle of them. No? If this is the case, what then keeps them orbiting a central mass? You mean they don't all orbit a central mass? "
We are in an old universe that has had collisions between galaxies. My idea is that every early isolated galaxy that started from H has a black hole. Those black holes in this category are older than galaxies and they create galaxies around them. My idea is in opposition to ideas that state that black holes are created in galaxies by collecting material.
Modern galaxies that do not have black holes are the result of collisions between galaxies. Those collisions caused some parts of galaxies to become separated from the parts of galaxies that retain the black hole. Those galaxies without black holes can have stars orbiting the center of mass, but they cannot have new stars created from pure Hydrogen, I speculate.
M said "your speculation is completely inaccurate based on what we know. ...as far as we know. " We do not know everything. Things that astronomers do know can be wrong, have been wrong many times in past years. Is it so wrong to jump ahead of experimentally proven facts about gravity waves, gravitons, and turbulence in the space-time continuum? I say no. It is appropriate to make a conjecture, and then, at a much later date, to gather experimental evidence to disprove or prove the conjecture.
Some modern theories are summaried here :
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... apse.shtml
As I read the 3 day old paper, I concluded that scientists are not sure H alone can form a star. Here is an excerpt, "Klein, McKee and Krumholz continue to refine their model to explain how radiation from large protostars escapes without blowing away all the infalling gas. For example, they have shown that some of the radiation can escape through cavities created by the jets observed to come out the poles of many stars in formation."
They are still working on it. Their models are trying to overcome practical reasons why stars cannot be created.
Here is another excerpt, "Real star formation regions have much more turbulence than assumed in the accretion model, and the turbulence does not quickly decay, as that model presumes. Some unknown processes, perhaps matter flowing out of protostars, keep the gases roiled up so that the core does not collapse quickly.".
Some unknown processes...... (turbulence in gravity waves from black holes, I speculate).
Here is a second article http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 10116.html
It says : "So while much has been learned over the past two decades about stellar evolution, as well as the interior of full-blown stars, their birth remains mysterious."
Your wish is my command line.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing what the purpose of this speculation is. Your ideas are pretty much unprovable, and seem unecessarily complex - you're invoking eddies in the space time continuum (I have a vision of sofas appearing out of nowhere here...) when there's no evidence whatsoever that these exist.
And waves do not have turbulence - flow has turbulence. The waves themselves are not "turbulent", it's the medium that has that property as a result of the flow speed.
There is also no evidence that black holes somehow spontaneously create matter around them. Yes, stars form near the galactic ones because there's also a heck of a lot of gas around there and a very uneven density distribution that allows stars to collapse in them, but there's no evidence that this is cause by the BH itself.
We may not know all there is about star formation but as yet there's no overwhelming evidence to change our ideas about it.
And waves do not have turbulence - flow has turbulence. The waves themselves are not "turbulent", it's the medium that has that property as a result of the flow speed.
There is also no evidence that black holes somehow spontaneously create matter around them. Yes, stars form near the galactic ones because there's also a heck of a lot of gas around there and a very uneven density distribution that allows stars to collapse in them, but there's no evidence that this is cause by the BH itself.
We may not know all there is about star formation but as yet there's no overwhelming evidence to change our ideas about it.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system
-
Hunter Parasite
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 18.09.2005
- With us: 19 years 7 months
- Location: CT
This is similar to my Supermassive Black hole thread http://www.shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8003&sid=4a0bbf1ba2382bd1cb6bfcc22801bbd0
-
Topic authorGlobeMaker
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 30.10.2005
- With us: 19 years 6 months
Hello everyone. I found a reference on the web that supports my speculation that black holes make stars :
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 50207.html
They give a good picture of a stars forming in a jet from a black hole. Here is an excerpt from that article:
"It is not clear how big a role all this plays in galaxy formation. Stars can form without a radio jet around to shock a cloud. Exploding stars known as supernovas, for example, can trigger new star formation.
Other studies show black holes play an important role in overall galaxy formation. "The formation of massive black holes is critical to the formation of new galaxies," Croft said.
Most large galaxies have a central black hole, and often they emit jets of high-speed material."
Malenfant said, "Sorry, but I'm not seeing what the purpose of this speculation is".
The purpose is to get credit for being the first person to say that black holes create galaxies by creating turbulence in the frame of reference. Gravity is an accelerating frame of reference. Earth's gravity is a static gravity. Gravity does not have to be static, it can have variations, eddies, and turbulence. In the olden days, "the ether" was the theoretical medium through which light propagated. Today, light propagates thrugh a frame of reference. For some good reading on this, look at a book by Albert Einstein called "The Meaning of Relativity".
Which came first ? The black hole or the galaxy? I am speculating that black holes came first and they did more than suck in hydrogen. They caused disturbances in the frame of reference that disturbance was not a static gravity field, it was a dynamic disturbance with many derivatives.
The first three derivatives of "the frame of reference" are well known : position, velocity, and acceleration. The higher derivatives can be described by divergence, curl, turbulence, and eddies in acceleration. These forces, I speculate, are what gives the"extra action" to pure Hydrogen to form stars.
Hunter Parasite posted a reference to an earlier thread. Thank you. Here is a response to the speculation that dark matter is anti-matter : I speculate, based on your words, that dark matter is a type of molecule. This molecule has one proton and one antiproton. They do not destroy each other in the same way an electron is not eaten by a proton in a hydrogen atom. Even though they have opposite charges and they have some attraction for each other, electrons do not collide with protons in H atoms. By analogy, ant-matter forms a stable molecule with matter.
Getting back to the radio jet reference at top, the jet from the black hole is an eddie. An eddie is a vortex. This vortex from a black hole is sending waves of stuff away from the black hole, overcoming the gravity. I speculate that many other types of vortexes can exist, not just radio jets. The space-time continuum is the frame of reference with all its derivatives and it can have eddies flung far afield. Maybe. Stars form from Hydrogen when the vortex hits the H cloud. Maybe.
The purpose is to get credit for being the first person to say that black holes create galaxies by creating turbulence in the frame of reference. Think of the frame of reference as reality,while we as just actors painted into a frame.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 50207.html
They give a good picture of a stars forming in a jet from a black hole. Here is an excerpt from that article:
"It is not clear how big a role all this plays in galaxy formation. Stars can form without a radio jet around to shock a cloud. Exploding stars known as supernovas, for example, can trigger new star formation.
Other studies show black holes play an important role in overall galaxy formation. "The formation of massive black holes is critical to the formation of new galaxies," Croft said.
Most large galaxies have a central black hole, and often they emit jets of high-speed material."
Malenfant said, "Sorry, but I'm not seeing what the purpose of this speculation is".
The purpose is to get credit for being the first person to say that black holes create galaxies by creating turbulence in the frame of reference. Gravity is an accelerating frame of reference. Earth's gravity is a static gravity. Gravity does not have to be static, it can have variations, eddies, and turbulence. In the olden days, "the ether" was the theoretical medium through which light propagated. Today, light propagates thrugh a frame of reference. For some good reading on this, look at a book by Albert Einstein called "The Meaning of Relativity".
Which came first ? The black hole or the galaxy? I am speculating that black holes came first and they did more than suck in hydrogen. They caused disturbances in the frame of reference that disturbance was not a static gravity field, it was a dynamic disturbance with many derivatives.
The first three derivatives of "the frame of reference" are well known : position, velocity, and acceleration. The higher derivatives can be described by divergence, curl, turbulence, and eddies in acceleration. These forces, I speculate, are what gives the"extra action" to pure Hydrogen to form stars.
Hunter Parasite posted a reference to an earlier thread. Thank you. Here is a response to the speculation that dark matter is anti-matter : I speculate, based on your words, that dark matter is a type of molecule. This molecule has one proton and one antiproton. They do not destroy each other in the same way an electron is not eaten by a proton in a hydrogen atom. Even though they have opposite charges and they have some attraction for each other, electrons do not collide with protons in H atoms. By analogy, ant-matter forms a stable molecule with matter.
Getting back to the radio jet reference at top, the jet from the black hole is an eddie. An eddie is a vortex. This vortex from a black hole is sending waves of stuff away from the black hole, overcoming the gravity. I speculate that many other types of vortexes can exist, not just radio jets. The space-time continuum is the frame of reference with all its derivatives and it can have eddies flung far afield. Maybe. Stars form from Hydrogen when the vortex hits the H cloud. Maybe.
The purpose is to get credit for being the first person to say that black holes create galaxies by creating turbulence in the frame of reference. Think of the frame of reference as reality,while we as just actors painted into a frame.
Your wish is my command line.
If you want credit for an idea, then publish a paper on it and see if it gets accepted by the scientific community. Nobody is going to notice you posting it here.
You'll note that the space.com article does not imply that BH's create stars by twisting up spacetime, but rather by the jets of matter they shoot out that compress nearby interstellar gas and dust.
Also, you'll need a darn sight more data and evidence than what you've provided so far here (i.e. none, in this case) to persuade people that your idea is valid. Stating that gravity can have "variations, eddies and turbulence" does not make it true - for one thing, gravity is a force, not a flow and does not have those properties. As yet we have found no evidence to support any of your ideas at all.
Speculation by itself is meaningless. If you want to be scientific about it then propose a hypothesis and an experiment to gather data and to test your speculation, and then go gather that data and present the results. But right now, all you're making is unproven assertions based on a misunderstanding of how gravity and spacetime work.
You'll note that the space.com article does not imply that BH's create stars by twisting up spacetime, but rather by the jets of matter they shoot out that compress nearby interstellar gas and dust.
Also, you'll need a darn sight more data and evidence than what you've provided so far here (i.e. none, in this case) to persuade people that your idea is valid. Stating that gravity can have "variations, eddies and turbulence" does not make it true - for one thing, gravity is a force, not a flow and does not have those properties. As yet we have found no evidence to support any of your ideas at all.
Speculation by itself is meaningless. If you want to be scientific about it then propose a hypothesis and an experiment to gather data and to test your speculation, and then go gather that data and present the results. But right now, all you're making is unproven assertions based on a misunderstanding of how gravity and spacetime work.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system