Sir Knots A Lot's M87 white hole thread

[Sir Knots A Lot]

Supposing you mean a white hole, consider having a white hole present at the center of our galaxy.
I think we would see clouds of interstellar gas light up enormously in the direction of the center, which is not observed.
And a huge flux of highly energetic particles should be seen coming from there.

You could of course say that the outflux of material from the white hole is not that energetic, and most stuff remains in close proximity of the center.
But then the galaxy as a whole would not be stable, the center would constantly increase in energy content - and thus gravitational strength.

How about M87, then?

Giant Galaxy Messier 87 finally sized up

It's elliptical, which would be the logical mass to see surrounding a white hole.

The Large and Small of M87

The small core of elliptical galaxy M87 appears to be energizing its whole galactic neighborhood. Recent images from the Very Large Array (VLA) of radio telescopes indicate that huge bubbles of hot gas not only exist but are still being created.

[my bolds]

[Moose]

Your post has been moved to its own thread within the ATM forum, where you may defend your claims if you like. You will find it here. If you prefer, instead, to not defend your claims, you may explicitly withdraw them in that new thread, then request (by reporting that OP) that the new thread be closed.

Others. As always in such cases, please be gentle until Sir Knots A Lot indicates he intends to defend this claim, or Monday, whichever comes first.

That is all.

[Sir Knots A Lot]

I wouldn't consider this an ATM topic as much as Against The Recent Mainstream.

The ideas are as old as General Relativity. If the LHC produces black holes that don't decay due to Hawking Radiation, we'll have to revisit them.

[Sir Knots A Lot]

Nice word pick out of the Wiki page. As far of the theory of eternal black holes, that's fine, but we're in questions and answers. We're supposed to stick with mainstream answers. Unless of course, YOU want to explain how a Wick rotation in 4d SPACE calculates the Euclidean path integral (A sum over histories approach).

The meridians in blue should be equivalent to Hawking's imaginary time.

All straight lines are connected at infinity.

This is using Shu's no big bang cosmology though.

[Tensor]

The meridians in blue should be equivalent to Hawking's imaginary time.

All straight lines are connected at infinity.

This is using Shu's no big bang cosmology though.

That doesn't explain the Wick rotation in 4d SPACE. What equations are you using for the Wick rotation? Which ones for the path integral? These are Quantum Gravity questions. I asked you to show how quantum gravity equations are a mainstream explanation. There not, and you didn't.

[Sir Knots A Lot]

That doesn't explain the Wick rotation in 4d SPACE. What equations are you using for the Wick rotation? Which ones for the path integral? These are Quantum Gravity questions. I asked you to show how quantum gravity equations are a mainstream explanation. There not, and you didn't.

If I could explain what you wanted, I wouldn't be speaking with you about it on this forum.

[Nereid]

The meridians in blue should be equivalent to Hawking's imaginary time.

All straight lines are connected at infinity.

This is using Shu's no big bang cosmology though.

This is using Shu's no big bang cosmology though.

How?

[Sir Knots A Lot]

This is using Shu's no big bang cosmology though.

How?

Shu predicts a hyperspherical geometry with a varying G and c to account for acceleration and deceleration occuring in the universe, eliminating the need for dark energy.

The meridians of the 3-sphere (shown in blue) outline the closed time-like curves, with the c dominated epoch being characterized by inflation/deceleration, and the G dominated epoch being characterized by deflation/acceleration.

[Tensor]

If I could explain what you wanted, I wouldn't be speaking with you about it on this forum.

That's the point. You can't explain it. I can't explain it. No one can explain it. As a result, it's not mainstream and doesn't belong in Q and A. You might want to check the rules for the Q and A section.

[Sir Knots A Lot]

That's the point. You can't explain it. I can't explain it. No one can explain it. As a result, it's not mainstream and doesn't belong in Q and A. You might want to check the rules for the Q and A section.

I never brought up the wick rotation and quantum gravity. I'm talking about Shu's solution to GR, which predicts an eternal singularity-free universe with a varying G and c.

The reference to the OP concerning how the geometry for a white hole is the time-reversal of a black hole and therefore it should be a system physically similar to that expected of the Big Bang. I'm proposing that the high 'c', low 'G' conditions associated with Shu's model seem to provide an avenue for the Inflationary epoch in that it would account for the superluminal expansion of space during that time.

[Nereid]

Shu predicts a hyperspherical geometry with a varying G and c to account for acceleration and deceleration occuring in the universe, eliminating the need for dark energy.

The meridians of the 3-sphere (shown in blue) outline the closed time-like curves, with the c dominated epoch being characterized by inflation/deceleration, and the G dominated epoch being characterized by deflation/acceleration.

I don't think we're reading the same Shu paper; can you please provide a reference?

In particular, I can't see how you get from what's in Shu's paper to this: "The meridians of the 3-sphere (shown in blue) outline the closed time-like curves, with the c dominated epoch being characterized by inflation/deceleration, and the G dominated epoch being characterized by deflation/acceleration."

Please explain.

[Nereid]

I never brought up the wick rotation and quantum gravity. I'm talking about Shu's solution to GR, which predicts an eternal singularity-free universe with a varying G and c.

The reference to the OP concerning how the geometry for a white hole is the time-reversal of a black hole and therefore it should be a system physically similar to that expected of the Big Bang. I'm proposing that the high 'c', low 'G' conditions associated with Shu's model seem to provide an avenue for the Inflationary epoch in that it would account for the superluminal expansion of space during that time.

I'm proposing that the high 'c', low 'G' conditions associated with Shu's model seem to provide an avenue for the Inflationary epoch in that it would account for the superluminal expansion of space during that time.

Is the totality of your proposal contained in posts in this thread?

If not, where else may one find details of it?

[Sir Knots A Lot]

Cosmological Models with no Big Bang - Wun-Yi Shu

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

[Nereid]

Cosmological Models with no Big Bang - Wun-Yi Shu

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

Thanks.

The first is, indeed, a preprint of a paper by Shu; the second is a commentary on it.

What's not clear to me is what questions of mine were you answering with this post, SKAL?

For avoidance of doubt, here are my recent questions, numbered:

1) Can you please provide a reference to the Shu paper?

2) Please explain how you get from what's in Shu's paper to this: "The meridians of the 3-sphere (shown in blue) outline the closed time-like curves, with the c dominated epoch being characterized by inflation/deceleration, and the G dominated epoch being characterized by deflation/acceleration"?

3) Is the totality of your proposal contained in posts in this thread?

4) If not, where else may one find details of it?

[Tensor]

I never brought up the wick rotation and quantum gravity.

You brought up the eternal black hole theory, which requires quantum gravity to solve, not me.

I'm talking about Shu's solution to GR, which predicts an eternal singularity-free universe with a varying G and c.

Quoting from the paper:

...and there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

Note that there is nothing there about preventing holes, either black or white. It talks about cosmological singularities, not black or white hole singularities.

The reference to the OP concerning how the geometry for a white hole is the time-reversal of a black hole and therefore it should be a system physically similar to that expected of the Big Bang. I'm proposing that the high 'c', low 'G' conditions associated with Shu's model seem to provide an avenue for the Inflationary epoch in that it would account for the superluminal expansion of space during that time.

How exactly? Explain exactly how you would transform Shu's model's equations into one that matches the inflationary epoch. Especially since Shu's model doesn't have a beginning, a rather large part of the reason for the inflationary epoch.

I'll leave it here as Nereid has gotten to my other questions first.

[Sir Knots A Lot]

1) Page 12. Equation 3.7 and the following paragraph.

The radius will get smaller and smaller as t approaches ą∞, however it can never reach zero, and therefore, time has no beginning and no end, and there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

2) The geometry of the meridians allows for movement in only 1 dimension, forwards or backwards (ą∞), unlike the parallels or the hypermeridians, making it the most likely candidate for describing a time-like dimension as opposed to the space-like dimensions. Assuming that something 'big bang' like is responsible for the CMB, it would likely be reproduceable in Shu's model as a low 'G', high 'c' epoch of the Universe, accounting for the apparent superluminal inflation required by the Big Bang. The opposite end of shu's model, an epoch dominated by high G and a low c, involving compression to duality (near singularity) would be the event horizon of a black hole. The logical assumption would be that the inflationary epoch must have a white hole-like geometry.

3) For the most part.

Addendum:

Inner Horizon, space moves faster than light?

One could draw the parallel between the inner horizon of a black and white hole. The white hole inner event horizon would feature space moving at superluminal speed as well, which fits with the requirements of inflation.

[caveman1917]

How about M87, then?

You are once again cherry-picking. From the same wiki article:

The galaxy also contains a notable active galactic nucleus

Of course we'd see lots of stuff flaring up in its center then.

This doesn't at all imply there is a white hole in the center of our galaxy.
If you take M87 as evidence for a central white hole in M87, that would even suggest we don't have one, since that stuff isn't seen in the milky way.

If the AGN is due to a (presumably isotropic) white hole as you say - instead of a SMBH accretion disk, how do you explain the jets?

[Sir Knots A Lot]

You are once again cherry-picking. From the same wiki article:



Of course we'd see lots of stuff flaring up in its center then.

This doesn't at all imply there is a white hole in the center of our galaxy.
If you take M87 as evidence for a central white hole in M87, that would even suggest we don't have one, since that stuff isn't seen in the milky way.

If the AGN is due to a (presumably isotropic) white hole as you say - instead of a SMBH accretion disk, how do you explain the jets?

I never said there was a white hole at the center of the Milky Way. We're in a spiral galaxy. I'm proposing all galaxies begin as ellipticals formed around the white hole that balance out the energy density of the vacuum. Lenticular galaxies would be an intermediate stage of evolution. An AGN in an elliptical galaxy is likely to be a white hole.

To discuss the quantum gravity of the situation, if the energy emitted through a white hole appears purely as angular momentum, there might not be a gravitational interaction at all. There's no reason to suppose that light itself produces its own gravitational field. This makes sense with Shu's c dominated epoch... G doesn't even matter until after the event horizon. With the black hole G dominated epoch, once you've crossed the event horizon, c is negligible.

Also, I never said the white holes were isotropic. I don't believe the black holes to be isotropic either. Seeing how Shu's cosmology predicts a non-vanishing radius, there is likely a minimum quantum of a space-like dimension L, implying the classical singularity to in fact be a duality. The jets formed around both of these objects would be due to the polarizing effects of these rotating dualities, having nothing to do with their gravitational properties.

[Nereid]

1) Page 12. Equation 3.7 and the following paragraph.

The radius will get smaller and smaller as t approaches ą∞, however it can never reach zero, and therefore, time has no beginning and no end, and there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

2) The geometry of the meridians allows for movement in only 1 dimension, forwards or backwards (ą∞), unlike the parallels or the hypermeridians, making it the most likely candidate for describing a time-like dimension as opposed to the space-like dimensions. Assuming that something 'big bang' like is responsible for the CMB, it would likely be reproduceable in Shu's model as a low 'G', high 'c' epoch of the Universe, accounting for the apparent superluminal inflation required by the Big Bang.

(bold added)

Thanks for the swift response.

If this is all there is, wrt your ATM idea, it is surely pretty darn underwhelming, right?

Can you back up your "likely" (etc) word pictures with some quantitative details, starting with what's in Shu's preprint?

If so, please do so; if not, please say so explicitly.

The opposite end of shu's model, an epoch dominated by high G and a low c, involving compression to duality (near singularity) would be the event horizon of a black hole.

Is this your own, personal, interpretation? Or is it explicitly stated in Shu's preprint?

If the latter, where, exactly?

If the former, please expand on your short word picture, and provide a detailed, quantitative explanation.

The logical assumption would be that the inflationary epoch must have a white hole-like geometry.

Why is it "the logical assumption"?

Specifically, don't you need to demonstrate - quantitatively - all the preceding steps, before you can even begin to consider whether this is a logical assumption (or not)?

3) For the most part.

Addendum:

Inner Horizon, space moves faster than light?

One could draw the parallel between the inner horizon of a black and white hole. The white hole inner event horizon would feature space moving at superluminal speed as well, which fits with the requirements of inflation.

As has already been noted, the physical (mass-energy) conditions for a white hole seem inconsistent with your characterisation. Further, "the requirements of inflation" are a lot more than merely "space moving at superluminal speed". Please show - quantitatively - that the ATM idea you are presenting meets all the other requirements of inflation, as it appears in contemporary cosmological models.

[Nereid]

I never said there was a white hole at the center of the Milky Way. We're in a spiral galaxy. I'm proposing all galaxies begin as ellipticals formed around the white hole that balance out the energy density of the vacuum.

I hadn't realised that this was part of your ATM proposal.

How does star formation occur, in the early years of these born-from-white-holes ellipticals?

Do elliptical galaxies, once formed, remain forever as ellipticals, in your ATM idea?

Where do the dark matter halos of all elliptical galaxies come from?

Lenticular galaxies would be an intermediate stage of evolution. An AGN in an elliptical galaxy is likely to be a white hole.

For clarity, are you referring to any elliptical galaxy? Or only a dwarf elliptical? a normal elliptical? a giant (cD) elliptical? something else?

What is the stage of evolution, of a galaxy, once it ceases to be a lenticular?

What is the typical time a galaxy spends as an elliptical? a lenticular?

How can one tell if an AGN in an elliptical is a white hole (vs not a white hole), in your ATM idea?

To discuss the quantum gravity of the situation, if the energy emitted through a white hole appears purely as angular momentum, there might not be a gravitational interaction at all. There's no reason to suppose that light itself produces its own gravitational field. This makes sense with Shu's c dominated epoch... G doesn't even matter until after the event horizon. With the black hole G dominated epoch, once you've crossed the event horizon, c is negligible.

Also, I never said the white holes were isotropic. I don't believe the black holes to be isotropic either. Seeing how Shu's cosmology predicts a non-vanishing radius, there is likely a minimum quantum of a space-like dimension L, implying the classical singularity to in fact be a duality. The jets formed around both of these objects would be due to the polarizing effects of these rotating dualities, having nothing to do with their gravitational properties.

(bold added)

What does "the polarizing effects of these rotating dualities" mean?

Please show - in quantitative detail - how your ATM idea of elliptical galaxies with AGNs accounts for all the relevant observations.

[Sir Knots A Lot]

Sure it's underwhelming. It's just a thought. Just a flash in the dark. If you want, you can just subtract the word 'likely' from my posts and claim that I came on here throwing lightning bolts and claiming divine knowledge.

My own interpretations are just pulled from examination of the few basic principles of Shu's work. I don't claim to understand tensor mathematics or wick rotations. I've got a decent grasp of fractal geometry and can solve a rubik's cube in under 3 minutes and thats largely it. Shu's geometry denies singularity, leaving us with a shrinking radius that never vanishes to zero, implying that in a physical sense there is a minimum quantum of space. The extension of singularity into polar duality makes more logical sense given a non-vanishing radius and the need to account for angular momentum and polar jets.

The duality is another inherent part of a model I'm studying regarding quark mechanics, but thats a whole other beast.

My assumptions are as follows:

Shu predicts that the universe acts to keep G(t)/c²(t) a constant. As t approaches 0, G becomes small and c becomes large to maintain this constant relation (think 0 to 10−32 seconds). As t approaches infinity, G becomes large and c becomes smaller. If the universe is eternal and time has no beginning and no end, this constant relationship between G(t) and c²(t) implies that a space-like dimension of time might exist through which this evolution takes place.

Which physical mass-energy conditions for a white hole are you talking about?

Which requirements for inflation are you talking about?

[Sir Knots A Lot]

I'm only replying to one question for that last post.

You post like a shotgun blast, btw. And go off on completely different tangents.

What does "the polarizing effects of these rotating dualities" mean?

If you've got a strong rotating polar field (duality = bar magnet) in a conductive medium (space and the accretion disc = conducting wire) then you've basically got a generator. But perpendicular to this rotation the fields will be quite twisted, resulting in the accelerating effects of the polar jets.

[Nereid]

I'm only replying to one question for that last post.

You post like a shotgun blast, btw. And go off on completely different tangents.
[...]

You chose to introduce ATM ideas concerning elliptical galaxies, into this thread.

Per the ATM rule, all BAUTians can ask direct questions, pertinent to the ATM ideas presented, as presented.

If you wish to retract any of the ATM claims you made, in the post I quoted, please do so.

Otherwise, please answer all the direct questions I asked. If you need time to do so, please say so (and give an indication of when you expect to provide answers).

[Sir Knots A Lot]

How does star formation occur in any elliptical?

The excess of old stars in elliptical should all be first generation stars, formed from the light isotopes being issued forth from the white hole horizon.

Ellipticals do not remain ellipticals in this ATM idea. They represent the first stage of galactic evolution, followed by an eventual smoothing of angular momentum to produce the disc as seen in lenticular galaxies, before evolving into the final spiral formations that dominate the universe around us.

When I refer to a white hole being at the center of an elliptical galaxy, it is assumed to contain an AGN.

Dark matter regarding ellipticals is not being discussed. If I could answer that, I wouldn't be on here.

[Nereid]

How does star formation occur in any elliptical?

The excess of old stars in elliptical should all be first generation stars, formed from the light isotopes being issued forth from the white hole horizon.

What mechanism is it that results in "light isotopes being issued forth from the white hole horizon"?

What are these "light isotopes"? What is their relative abundance?

What is the distribution of velocities at which "the light isotopes" are "issued forth from the white hole horizon"?

How is this distribution derived?

Ellipticals do not remain ellipticals in this ATM idea. They represent the first stage of galactic evolution, followed by an eventual smoothing of angular momentum to produce the disc as seen in lenticular galaxies, before evolving into the final spiral formations that dominate the universe around us.

What is the mechanism responsible for the "eventual smoothing of angular momentum"?

What is the evidence that "spiral formations [...] dominate the universe around us"?

Where, in the evolutionary sequence, do irregular galaxies come?

When I refer to a white hole being at the center of an elliptical galaxy, it is assumed to contain an AGN.

In this ATM idea, do all elliptical galaxies contain an AGN?

If not, how do the ones without an AGN form?

Dark matter regarding ellipticals is not being discussed. If I could answer that, I wouldn't be on here.

OK ... but I presume you are prepared to answer questions on the observed distribution of angular momentum in ellipticals, and similar questions, without referring to CDM; is that so?

Finally, how does this ATM idea account for the observational fact that the proportion of late-type vs early-type galaxies changes, as a function of z (the redshift)? What is the role of galaxy collisions/mergers, in this ATM idea?

[Sir Knots A Lot]

You know what... this is a theory of a couple things. Not everything. And you should number your questions, it'll be it easier to respond.

1. White hole baryogenesis. Described previously in this post.

2. Hydrogen, helium and lithium.

3. Good question, no answer. Asking about processes that occur behind the event horizon are damn near impossible to say anything about.

4. See above.

5. The changing G and c.

6. Spiral galaxies dominate the local area and it appears to be an evolutionary trend.

7. Gravitational interactions.

8. Originally, they can eventually be exhausted.

9. See above two responses.

10. Not really, no.

11. The universe is expanding? This isn't being debated. That's still in Shu's paper, he just assumes contraction as well. It's all relative though. And collisions/mergers just happen. I also expect that white holes can 'calve' and divide their event horizon as the masses of the gravitionally interacting light isotopes exert an outward and uneven pressure on the event horizon.

[Nereid]

Thanks (I've added the original questions into your post)

You know what... this is a theory of a couple things. Not everything. And you should number your questions, it'll be it easier to respond.

1. Q: What mechanism is it that results in "light isotopes being issued forth from the white hole horizon"?
A: White hole baryogenesis. Described previously in this post.

2(1). Q: What are these "light isotopes"?
A: Hydrogen, helium and lithium.

2(2). Q: What is their relative abundance?

3. Q: What is the distribution of velocities at which "the light isotopes" are "issued forth from the white hole horizon"?
A: Good question, no answer. Asking about processes that occur behind the event horizon are damn near impossible to say anything about.

4. Q: How is this distribution derived?
A: See above.

5. Q: What is the mechanism responsible for the "eventual smoothing of angular momentum"?
A: The changing G and c.

6. Q: What is the evidence that "spiral formations [...] dominate the universe around us"?
A: Spiral galaxies dominate the local area and it appears to be an evolutionary trend.

7. Q: Where, in the evolutionary sequence, do irregular galaxies come?
A: Gravitational interactions.

8. Q: In this ATM idea, do all elliptical galaxies contain an AGN?
A: Originally, they can eventually be exhausted.

9. Q: If not, how do the ones without an AGN form?
A: See above two responses.

10. Q: OK ... but I presume you are prepared to answer questions on the observed distribution of angular momentum in ellipticals, and similar questions, without referring to CDM; is that so?
A: Not really, no.

11(1). Q: Finally, how does this ATM idea account for the observational fact that the proportion of late-type vs early-type galaxies changes, as a function of z (the redshift)?
A: The universe is expanding? This isn't being debated. That's still in Shu's paper, he just assumes contraction as well. It's all relative though.

11(2). Q: What is the role of galaxy collisions/mergers, in this ATM idea?
A: And collisions/mergers just happen.
I also expect that white holes can 'calve' and divide their event horizon as the masses of the gravitionally interacting light isotopes exert an outward and uneven pressure on the event horizon.

The following questions have not yet been answered:

1. Q: What mechanism is it that results in "light isotopes being issued forth from the white hole horizon"?
Note: the link in your answer contains nothing about the formation of any nuclide other than the proton.

2(1). Q: What are these "light isotopes"?
Note: hydrogen has three isotopes (one of which is unstable), helium two, and lithium two too (not counting highly unstable isotopes).

2(2). Q: What is their relative abundance?

5. Q: What is the mechanism responsible for the "eventual smoothing of angular momentum"?
Note: "The changing G and c" is not a mechanism.

6. Q: What is the evidence that "spiral formations [...] dominate the universe around us"?
Note: "Spiral galaxies dominate the local area" is not evidence. Further, the link in your answer mentions only "the largest and brightest galaxies close to our own", and does not present any evidence.

7. Q: Where, in the evolutionary sequence, do irregular galaxies come?
Note: in the ATM idea presented so far, ellipticals all evolve into lenticulars, which then all evolve into spirals. The question asks what evolves into irregulars (or, maybe, are irregulars primordial, like ellipticals)

11(2). Q: What is the role of galaxy collisions/mergers, in this ATM idea?
Note: this question asks what role galaxy collisions/mergers play in galaxy evolution, if any.

For clarity, here's a follow-on question, related to 5.

12(2). Q: what is the distribution of angular momentum in elliptical galaxies?

12(3). Q: what is the distribution of angular momentum in spiral galaxies?

12(4). Q: How, quantitatively, do changing G and c convert angular momentum?

[Sir Knots A Lot]

1. I never got to complete my quark analysis in that section. I've got an analysis of the formation and nuclear structure of atoms up to lithium. Beyond lithium the nuclear quark structure is tetrahedral and difficult to sketch out on paper.

2(1). Hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium and lithium.

2(2). Hydrogen would have the highest abundance, followed by deuterium, helium, lithium. The route for production would be hydrogen - deuterium - (helium and lithium). Tritium is a little more difficult to predict.

5(?). The movement from the c dominated epoch to the g dominated epoch where the galaxy has a central black hole who's rotation an gravitational attraction provide and organizing influence.

6. That link mentioned that while the relative density of spirals drops as we look further away (back in time) the percentage of irregulars increases while the percentage of lenticular and elliptical remains the same. This only implies that more gravitational interaction or collision has taken place in that particular area. We should see is that ellipticals should dominate the central areas of superclusters, which spirals and irregulars dominating the outskirts.

7. Gravitation interaction. Galactic collisions. Etc.

11(2). Formation of irregular galaxies.

12(2). Radial.

12(3). Rotational

12(4). At a high c, low G epoch, gravity is a non-entity. As the transition from c to G epoch occurs, gravity plays a larger role in organizing angular momentum. The c-epoch would lack this organizing factor and be more chaotic.

It should be note, that while most ellipticals are observed to contain older stars, these would be first generation stars, formed primarily from the light isotopes.

[Nereid]

1. I never got to complete my quark analysis in that section. I've got an analysis of the formation and nuclear structure of atoms up to lithium. Beyond lithium the nuclear quark structure is tetrahedral and difficult to sketch out on paper.

1(3). Q: At what distance (range) from the white hole does this nucleogenesis take place?

2(1). Hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium and lithium.

2(3). Q: ⁴H? ⁵H? ⁶H? ⁷H? ³He? ⁴He? ⁵He? ⁶He? ⁷He? ⁸He? ⁹He? ¹⁰He? ⁴Li? ⁵Li? ⁶Li? ⁷Li? ⁸Li? ⁹Li? ¹⁰Li? ¹¹Li? ¹²Li?

2(2). Hydrogen would have the highest abundance, followed by deuterium, helium, lithium. The route for production would be hydrogen - deuterium - (helium and lithium). Tritium is a little more difficult to predict.

2(4). Q: After the unstable isotopes decayed, what would be the relative abundances of the stable isotopes, quantitatively?

5(?). The movement from the c dominated epoch to the g dominated epoch where the galaxy has a central black hole who's rotation an gravitational attraction provide and organizing influence.

5(1). Q: Huh? In your ATM idea, as presented, elliptical galaxies do not have black holes at the centre of their AGNs; they are white holes. Please clarify.

6. That link mentioned that while the relative density of spirals drops as we look further away (back in time) the percentage of irregulars increases while the percentage of lenticular and elliptical remains the same. This only implies that more gravitational interaction or collision has taken place in that particular area. We should see is that ellipticals should dominate the central areas of superclusters, which spirals and irregulars dominating the outskirts.

This does not answer the question asked.

Here it is again:
6. Q: What is the evidence that "spiral formations [...] dominate the universe around us"?

Please answer the question.

7. Gravitation interaction. Galactic collisions. Etc.

This does not answer the question asked.

Here it is again:
7. Q: Where, in the evolutionary sequence, do irregular galaxies come?
Note: in the ATM idea presented so far, ellipticals all evolve into lenticulars, which then all evolve into spirals. The question asks what evolves into irregulars (or, maybe, are irregulars primordial, like ellipticals).

Please answer the question.

11(2). Formation of irregular galaxies.

11(3). Q: So, for every observed irregular galaxy, there must be at least two parents (the galaxies which collided/merged to form the irregular); is that correct?

12(2). Radial.

12(5). Q: What, quantitatively, is the distribution of angular momentum in elliptical galaxies?

12(3). Rotational

12(6). Q: What, quantitatively, is the distribution of angular momentum in spiral galaxies?

12(4). At a high c, low G epoch, gravity is a non-entity. As the transition from c to G epoch occurs, gravity plays a larger role in organizing angular momentum. The c-epoch would lack this organizing factor and be more chaotic.

This does not answer the question asked.

Here it is again:
12(4). Q: How, quantitatively, do changing G and c convert angular momentum?
Note the key word "quantitatively".

Please answer the question.

It should be note, that while most ellipticals are observed to contain older stars, these would be first generation stars, formed primarily from the light isotopes.

13. Q: Where do the "metals" (i.e. elements other than H and He (and Li), especially C, O, and Fe) in the stars in ellipticals come from?

[WayneFrancis]

... that it would account for the superluminal expansion of space during that time.

I hate this term "superluminal expansion of space". Right now space seems to be expanding at ~70.8 km/sec/Mpcą1.6 km/sec/Mpc. In the past the rate of expansion was both greater and less than this amount. My point is that no matter what the the rate of expansion there are sets of points that would qualify as receding at "superluminal" speeds. Even if space was only expanding at 1m/s/100ly there would still be "superluminal expansion of space"