Universe Not Spherical

[Confused]

Hello Confused

That may be true.

But! what part do you think, I have no logic.

I think you are very intelligent. My impression is that you say crazy things to get attention. I am not an astronomer and I barely know you, so I could easily be wrong.

I am also very skeptical of the Big Bang theory, but I usually have difficulty having useful conversations with people that insist upon saying crazy things and using their intelligence to be ignorant of truth, because I waste time trying to correct them instead of praising. That creates an endless loop, since most people that say crazy things just want positive attention yet they cause others to give them negative attention.

To the extent that your theories are valid, they can be stated in many other ways; ways that support and encorage discussion.

[Nereid]

[snip]

I am also very skeptical of the Big Bang theory,

[snip]

May I ask if your skepticism relates to one or two specifics, or is it more of a general nature?

Also, if I could ask a second question, to what extent does your skepticism concern philosophy (that may not, even in principle, relate to anything testable), as opposed to science (which may, at least in principle, be subject to testing)?

[Confused]

[snip]

I am also very skeptical of the Big Bang theory,

[snip]

May I ask if your skepticism relates to one or two specifics, or is it more of a general nature?

Also, if I could ask a second question, to what extent does your skepticism concern philosophy (that may not, even in principle, relate to anything testable), as opposed to science (which may, at least in principle, be subject to testing)?

First, please refer to my previous statements indicating I barely qualify as an amateur astronomer.

My skepticism is basicly the result of the absence of substantial knowledge. Current knowledge is definitely much more substantial than hundreds of years ago, but there is much more to learn. I suspect that many of the current theories of astronomical physics are likely to be absurd in a manner that previous theories were. For example (according to the Science Channel), many physicists believe that gravity is leaking from another universe. I am confident that there will be a time when that theory will be known to be absurd.

I think that the most capable scientists understand that we don't know enough to be sure and therefore we don't hear from them.

Something else that I am skeptical of is black holes. I was taught that nothing can escape a black hole, yet obviously gravity does. Recenlty the theories of black holes are changing, but astronomers still believe that they eat galaxies. Has anyone suggested the possibility that galaxies are developed from black holes?

As for the big bang, perhaps the universe is being pulled apart, instead of being blown apart.

Is that enough? Perhaps one of us should create a new thread to discuss these things further.

[astro_uk]

Hi Confused, Its definitely worth having a healthy dose of skepticism, one thing that is important to remember though is that any theories that replace the current ones likely will have to build on those already around. Take gravity for example, GR has been tested to huge precision, so any theory that replaces it must act exactly the same over the limits that we have already probed.

I was taught that nothing can escape a black hole, yet obviously gravity does. Recenlty the theories of black holes are changing, but astronomers still believe that they eat galaxies. Has anyone suggested the possibility that galaxies are developed from black holes?

To comment on this specific point. Gravity is not a something in GR, gravity is a property of space/time and as such cannot act on itself, so it can "escape" a black hole. The other point about BHs eating galaxies is not quite true, supermassive BHs at the centres of galaxies accrete matter from the galaxies but they tend to form an equilibrium where the mass contained in the BH is a fairly constant fraction of the mass of the bulge of the galaxy the so called Magorrian relation. This fraction is about 0.5% of the mass of the bulge, so an even tinier fraction of the total mass of a galaxy like the MW which is disc dominated.

[Confused]

any theories that replace the current ones likely will have to build on those already around

Why? Who says so? That is highly inconsistent with my education and non-scientific. Scientific theory must always be the result of observations, not someone's theory that might be the result of limited observations.

I think that you mean that any new theories must be the result of observations including those already around. To that I say of course. If you think I meant anything inconsistent with that then say so and I will explain.

To comment on this specific point. Gravity is not a something in GR, gravity is a property of space/time and as such cannot act on itself, so it can "escape" a black hole.

Gravity is energy, just as magnetism and light are energy.

Probably gravity is a bad example. Probably the problem is the teaching that taught nothing escapses a black hole. To the extent that gravity escapes a black hole, it is an over-simplification to say that nothing nothing escapes.

The other point about BHs eating galaxies is not quite true, supermassive BHs at the centres of galaxies accrete matter from the galaxies but they tend to form an equilibrium where the mass contained in the BH is a fairly constant fraction of the mass of the bulge of the galaxy the so called Magorrian relation. This fraction is about 0.5% of the mass of the bulge, so an even tinier fraction of the total mass of a galaxy like the MW which is disc dominated.

I am sorry, but I tried to keep things simple. My term eat is an over-simplification. It implies that black holes constantly consume portions of galaxies. The important thing that I said is that since there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy, it seems likely that galaxies are born from them in some manner. This is something that might have happened billions of years ago and there might be little evidence of it that we can observe now. People in the past might consider volcanoes to be destructive since they destroy so much when they erupt. Modern scientists know that volcanoes create beautiful places such as Hawaii.

[astro_uk]

Well if you believe GR and QM nothing can escape a BH except energy/mass in the form of Hawking radiation.

The important thing that I said is that since there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy, it seems likely that galaxies are born from them in some manner.

I don't see how this follows, just because the BHs are there is not evidence that the galaxy formed from them, in fact from a purely Occam like argument its obviously easier to make the smaller mass BH from the galaxy than the other way around. Plus of course we see high redshift galaxies with smaller BHs than ones today, not the other way around as your idea would imply.

[Confused]

Has anyone suggested the possibility that galaxies are developed from black holes?

Well if you believe GR and QM nothing can escape a BH except energy/mass in the form of Hawking radiation.

The important thing that I said is that since there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy, it seems likely that galaxies are born from them in some manner.

I don't see how this follows, just because the BHs are there is not evidence that the galaxy formed from them, in fact from a purely Occam like argument its obviously easier to make the smaller mass BH from the galaxy than the other way around. Plus of course we see high redshift galaxies with smaller BHs than ones today, not the other way around as your idea would imply.

I suggested this as a possibility. My initial comment was a question asking if it has been considered. In this context, the important thing is whether it is a possibility. I assume there is not enough evidence to cause this theory to replace current theory; the important question is if it is possible that future observations will indicate this alternative. The important point I am trying to make is that we don't know everything. Anyone that claims we know everything should be ignored.

[Confused]

Also, if I could ask a second question, to what extent does your skepticism concern philosophy (that may not, even in principle, relate to anything testable), as opposed to science (which may, at least in principle, be subject to testing)?

Just to clarify things a bit more, truth very is important to me.

[astro_uk]

Simply put anything is possible. There's a non zero chance that Harrys steady state is correct.

However the chances of galaxies being spewed out of BHs is so small that to all intents and purposes we can treat it as an impossibilty, according to everything that is known about physics and has been observed in astronomy that is. We see BHs that grow in step with their host galaxies, which is fairly strong evidence that the BH feeds off the galaxy not vice versa, then there is the problem of getting energy out of a black hole, there is no mechanism known that can get energy out of a BH rapidly, Hawking radiation is incredibly slow for large BHs.

No one has made any claims to know everything as far as I can tell. But there are many things that are known that essentially rule out other possibilities.

[Confused]

However the chances of galaxies being spewed out of BHs is so small that to all intents and purposes we can treat it as an impossibilty, according to everything that is known about physics and has been observed in astronomy that is.

The point is that we don't know everything.

You are ignoring some importnat things that I have said. For example I said that it is possible that the evolution of galaxies might have happened in the past in a manner that we can't observe now. There is something more important than that that you are ignoring.

You are another person that makes more effort to criticize than to understand.

[harry]

Hello Astro

The mechanism is via the jets.

But! I know you disagree with that.

At this moment I'm going through many paperson jets, once I finish reading these papers I will come back on this issue.

[astro_uk]

Hi Harry, I look forward to your input.

Hi Confused.

There are many things that might have happened, but there is no point discussing things that might have happened when it is so unlikely that they have. There are many good reasons to believe that BHs form from galaxies not the other way around, just as there are many good reasons to suppose that every single molecule of air in this room will not suddenly decide to move into one corner.

If we are supposed to spend our time examining things that are so unlikely (according to everything we already know) we won't get very far.

I don't go out of my way to criticize, I'm not criticizing you, I'm pointing out, from a position of knowing more about the subject, that the idea you proposed is essentially impossible. I could continue to molly colddle you but that wouldn't get either of us very far.

[harry]

Hello Astro

Good response.

[Confused]

There are many things that might have happened, but there is no point discussing things that might have happened.

Yes!

That is what I am saying, but you are more interested in criticizing my examples. My examples are just examples. If you don't understand what I am saying then please, please ignore me.

Many people try harder to explain what they think the other person does not understand than they try to understand what they don't understand (they talk but don't listen). You are sure doing that. You are trying to explain things to me and you are not trying to understand me.

One big indication that you are not trying to understand is that you have not asked what it is that you don't understand, yet I have sure indicatged that you don't.

[astro_uk]

Feel free to enlighten me.

[Wadsworth]

Confused, I don't think Astro was attaching you in any way, or even being very critical. You asked, he answered. Please don't take it personally or try to be so protective, it takes away from the intended manner of this forum.

Has anyone suggested the possibility that galaxies are developed from black holes?

He answered, Yes I'm sure that has been suggested but evidence points in the other direction.

Some quick examples that come to mind are. Humans, we each have a heart, but does that mean we we're created from our heart? The heart plays its role, and has its purpose.

The way I understand it is, BH are ultra dense matter that feed on matter, and in doing so, cause excretion of matter. This is an inevitable percussion of the existing modes of energy/forces etc. in our universe.

Do some searches on the formation of galaxies.

On the other hand, YES we definitely don't know everything, and tomorrow our entire view of the universe could do a complete 180, but theories based on observations are all we have to go on until someone drops the universe BIBLE on our door step!

Cheers

edit:

One big indication that you are not trying to understand is that you have not asked what it is that you don't understand, yet I have sure indicatged that you don't.

What does Astro, and coincidentally myself, not understand?

[Confused]

I took it personally becuase the criticism was so strong. If you don't understand then please go back to your telescopes and avoid real people.

My initial question was if something was considered. The criticism was not necessary.

Hundreds of years ago, when the center of the Universe was considered to be the Earth, people were very critical of anyone that suggested that Earth was not the center. The criticsm I have received for an alternative theory is similar to that criticsm.

There are good reasons to consider the alternative. A true scientist would consider all evidence, but the criticsm here does not. I really think that the true intent of these forums is to discuss science, not impose science as a religion.

I asked if the alternative theory has been considered. That questio has not been answered. Before commenting on the secondary comment, can anyone answer the primary question?

Can anyone imagine any evidence supportint the theory that galaxies are the result of black holes? I think that there is sufficient evidence to consider it, and if I am correct then anyone that can't understand that is not qualified to criticize the theory.

Again, I think the purpose of these forums is to discuss theories, but the strong criticsm I received is not conducive of discussion.

[Confused]

Confused, I don't think Astro was attaching you in any way

I made a simple satement and got a lot of details about why my statement is wrong. The volume of comments were unnecessary.

You asked, he answered.

He did not answer my question.

Please don't take it personally or try to be so protective, it takes away from the intended manner of this forum.

Please report me. Please do. I strongly believe I am being very reasonable. Either report me or stop saying I am inconsistennt with the intended manner of this forum.

Has anyone suggested the possibility that galaxies are developed from black holes?

He answered,

No he did not.

[Wadsworth]

Ok, I'd like to start over if I may.

I asked if the alternative theory has been considered. That questio has not been answered.

I can't say, on a factual basis, how much that alternate theory has been considered by scientists. I wasn't able to find any published scientific papers on the matter.
I can say that if you would like to discuss the ins and outs of the idea we could do so here

If I may ask (in order to better understand your example), what would the theory imply?
1) Black Holes creating galaxies in the sense of pulling pre-existing (large) objects like stars and planets together to form a galaxy?
or 2) Black Holes creating galaxies from accreting relatively small things like gas particles, atoms etc.
or 3) Some other unforeseen method?

[astro_uk]

I am sorry if you took personal offense but you really have no right to, in Science you have to expect your theories to be looked at dispationately, there will be others far less polite than me I can assure you. You are fortunate you don't have to make polite conversation in person with people that do that.

Back to your question.

Has the theory been considered?

Yes of course, but only at the barest level. Because it runs against observations and theory.

Look at it like this. We see that essentially every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its centre. But most of them are not active. In your picture the BHs would presumably form first and then eject the matter that later forms the stars etc. Now of course this is against General Relativity because nothing can directly escape from a BH. The other point is that if the BHs are ejecting matter, why do only some of them do it for some of the time. Traditionally this is explained by the fact that the matter we see coming from the BH is not coming out of the BH it is matter ejected from an accreting disc of matter. So you only see a jet of material when you have matter falling onto the BH, which is why we only really see active BHs in merging or gas rich galaxies. In your picture you need some way for BHs to decide to emit material at one point in time but not another, considering everything we know about GR this also is impossible.

[Confused]

[snip]

I am also very skeptical of the Big Bang theory,

[snip]

May I ask if your skepticism relates to one or two specifics, or is it more of a general nature?

Also, if I could ask a second question, to what extent does your skepticism concern philosophy (that may not, even in principle, relate to anything testable), as opposed to science (which may, at least in principle, be subject to testing)?

I am sorry if you took personal offense but you really have no right to, in Science you have to expect your theories to be looked at dispationately, there will be others far less polite than me I can assure you. You are fortunate you don't have to make polite conversation in person with people that do that.

Yes, there are many rude people in forums and newsgroups. I think it is reasonable to expect that intelligent people would know better. It is because of all the immature rude people that I am reacting the way I am. I am extremely frustrated and amazed by all the rudeness that exists.

I said that I am not a physicist or astronomer and yet you replied to me with a lot of technical stuff that is far beyond my ability to participate. I consider that to be rude; that is, you are talking down to me.

Note that I was answering a question when I used black holes as examples.

[astro_uk]

I said that I am not a physicist or astronomer and yet you replied to me with a lot of technical stuff that is far beyond my ability to participate. I consider that to be rude; that is, you are talking down to me.

You asked whether or not your theory was correct, how can I respond to that if I can't use the language of science? I'm sorry if you don't understand, but not everything in the Universe has to be easily understandable to the average person in the street. I didnt talk down to you at all, I merely assumed you had more knowledge about the subject than you do. If anything I assumed you must know something about the topic.

I have no knowledge of advanced biology, but then I don't try to come up with theories about how cell biology works either. Astronomy/Physics is the only field where you get a surfeit of ideas from people that have no understanding of the implications of their theories. Put yourself in our shoes, every day you get emails and questions from people that get increasingly annoyed when you point out that their ideas are ruled out. Now who is being arrogant, the person with all the years of training and knowledge of the limitations of their own abilities and the data or the person that thinks their so clever that education isnt necessary to understand some of the most complex processes in the Univers?

Now I'm not saying people should keep their noses out, just that it pays to read a bit more widely to try and see why currently accepted ideas are the most popular, before jumping in and attempting to turn things over.

You'll get over a slightly bruised ego quickly, trust me in science you have to have a thick skin, and the ability to admit you were wrong even after a lifetime of pushing a theory.

So the question really is how else could this discussion have evolved? You have a theory, which you dont understand fully, not least its implications, you have no idea about the technicalities of astronomy, or the wealth of observational data that has a direct impact on your idea, so how do I respond to your question? I can't describe anything that rules out your theory because you don't understand it? If that is the case why bother asking anyone? I could have just said No the theory is wrong, but then you still wouldnt have any idea why, at least this way some people may have learned something new.

[Confused]

You asked whether or not your theory was correct

No I did not. The remainder of your comments are based on an invalid assumption.

As I said in my previous reply, my comments about black holes were provided as examples of what I was skeptical of. I did not ask for discussion here. I consider the topic to be off-topic for this thread and I would not have encoraged off-topic discussion.

[harry]

Hello All

My dad says to me.

Play with the cards at hand.