An Infinite Steady State Universe - The recycle Bin?

[Neil Russell]

Following on from my first thread there must be some way that matter is recycled to create more hydrogen to fuel the star process.

The Black Hole can hold the answer, it takes in matter and compacts it down hugely, I would suggest that it achieves this by "stepping down" our atoms through the sub atomic periodic table, at each level the particles take up less and less space.
The black hole compacts matter below the level where electromagnetic particles are created or exist, this being the case you will not see light etc coming from a black hole.
We can now suggest that the escape velocity is less than the speed of light for a black hole, therefore it is possible for a black hole to eject matter if its rate of spin exceeds its escape velocity.
The matter ejected from the black hole would recombine to form the first element, hydrogen.
The pictures of spiral galaxies show us their spiral shape, which is similar to the pattern shown by a catherine wheel firework, in other words it suggests material thrown from a spinning body.

On 13/8/2002 the Subaru Telescope announced it had discovered an exploding galaxy 14 billion light years away, they stated that clouds of hydrogen moving at several hundred kilometres per second were coming from the centre of the galaxy.

I would like to think this the answer of how an infinite universe recycles itself.

[Jens]

On 13/8/2002 the Subaru Telescope announced it had discovered an exploding galaxy 14 billion light years away.

I find the idea quite intriguing. But off topic, that sounds like a very articulate telescope!

[rodin]

Following on from my first thread there must be some way that matter is recycled to create more hydrogen to fuel the star process.

The Black Hole can hold the answer, it takes in matter and compacts it down hugely, I would suggest that it achieves this by "stepping down" our atoms through the sub atomic periodic table, at each level the particles take up less and less space.
The black hole compacts matter below the level where electromagnetic particles are created or exist, this being the case you will not see light etc coming from a black hole.
We can now suggest that the escape velocity is less than the speed of light for a black hole, therefore it is possible for a black hole to eject matter if its rate of spin exceeds its escape velocity.
The matter ejected from the black hole would recombine to form the first element, hydrogen.
The pictures of spiral galaxies show us their spiral shape, which is similar to the pattern shown by a catherine wheel firework, in other words it suggests material thrown from a spinning body.

On 13/8/2002 the Subaru Telescope announced it had discovered an exploding galaxy 14 billion light years away, they stated that clouds of hydrogen moving at several hundred kilometres per second were coming from the centre of the galaxy.

I would like to think this the answer of how an infinite universe recycles itself.

Consider the Quasar which ejects material from one or possibly two poles. How does it do this?

I think part of the answer lies there. I think a fast spinning superdense object may have a powerful gravitomagnetic field capable of overcoming static gravity. Furthermore I think a similar field is at work binding mass particles in spite of mutual positive charge in nuclei.

It is possible spiral galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centre, with spin axis in the galactic plane. Hence the formation of spiral arms.

Of course these ideas are pretty ATM.

[Neil Russell]

Is it possible to measure the gravity of a black hole ? by measuring the deviation of light ( a known) passing the black hole, against say the known deviation past our sun.
We know there are many sizes of black holes out there, under present theories they all have the same escape velocity, surely the larger mass hole must have a larger attraction? but how could it if it is limited to light speed. Much easier if the gravity attraction is less than light speed?

[Neil Russell]

Rodin, quasars are indeed mighty machines, but I would make a way out observation. Quasars are part of our observable universe and depend on the electromagnetic spectrum for their energy and consequent display.
Black holes I suggest work at a level below this, no magnetic fields no photons(light). All we are left with is the gravity energy force ( infinite) therefore no gravitons. This force is a mystery to act at the distances within the universe we see, it must surely be infinite in speed/action?

[Nereid]

Following on from my first thread there must be some way that matter is recycled to create more hydrogen to fuel the star process.

The Black Hole can hold the answer, it takes in matter and compacts it down hugely, I would suggest that it achieves this by "stepping down" our atoms through the sub atomic periodic table, at each level the particles take up less and less space.
The black hole compacts matter below the level where electromagnetic particles are created or exist, this being the case you will not see light etc coming from a black hole.
We can now suggest that the escape velocity is less than the speed of light for a black hole, therefore it is possible for a black hole to eject matter if its rate of spin exceeds its escape velocity.
The matter ejected from the black hole would recombine to form the first element, hydrogen.
The pictures of spiral galaxies show us their spiral shape, which is similar to the pattern shown by a catherine wheel firework, in other words it suggests material thrown from a spinning body.

On 13/8/2002 the Subaru Telescope announced it had discovered an exploding galaxy 14 billion light years away, they stated that clouds of hydrogen moving at several hundred kilometres per second were coming from the centre of the galaxy.

I would like to think this the answer of how an infinite universe recycles itself.

(bold added)

It seems that you are using the term "black hole" (or "Black Hole") in a non-standard way.

Please clarify what you intend this term to mean, in your ATM idea.

Concerning: "The pictures of spiral galaxies show us their spiral shape, which is similar to the pattern shown by a catherine wheel firework, in other words it suggests material thrown from a spinning body."

Please show - quantitatively - that the observed (2D, line) spectra of spiral galaxies is consistent with "material thrown from a spinning body".

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, sorry but you will have cut me some slack, I am new to this forum and will often use non standard terms from time to time.
Black hole is my term for the massive body found at the centre of a galaxy, around which the galaxy will revolve and which does not give off electromagnetic spectrum radiation.
You suggest I should show or observe a (2D line) re material thrown from a spinning body, well heck you have got me there, I don't understand what you are talking about. I can only follow my "simplistic" suggestion that if a material looks like it has been spun out from a point, ie spiral arms, then it has.

I am not going to be able to respond for a week or more as I am taking my caravan to our West Coast to view the glaciers. Look forward to the debate when I return.

[Nereid]

Nereid, sorry but you will have cut me some slack, I am new to this forum and will often use non standard terms from time to time.
Black hole is my term for the massive body found at the centre of a galaxy, around which the galaxy will revolve and which does not give off electromagnetic spectrum radiation.

Thanks for the clarification.

Have you developed you ATM idea of black holes to the point of being able to quantify anything?

You suggest I should show or observe a (2D line) re material thrown from a spinning body, well heck you have got me there, I don't understand what you are talking about. I can only follow my "simplistic" suggestion that if a material looks like it has been spun out from a point, ie spiral arms, then it has.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, the "looks like X, therefore is X" approach eh?

You might like to start a new thread in the Q&A section on why astronomers (etc) have concluded that the visible matter in spiral galaxies, outside the bulge, is in essentially circular orbits around the centre of mass, and what evidence there is against the idea that it is moving essentially radially away from there.

When you've done that, please let us know - in this thread - if you are prepared to answer questions on, and defend challenges to, your ATM idea re the spiral arms of galaxies.

I am not going to be able to respond for a week or more as I am taking my caravan to our West Coast to view the glaciers. Look forward to the debate when I return.

Sure thing ... have a great trip!

[Jens]

You might like to start a new thread in the Q&A section on why astronomers (etc) have concluded that the visible matter in spiral galaxies, outside the bulge, is in essentially circular orbits around the centre of mass, and what evidence there is against the idea that it is moving essentially radially away from there.

I recently asked that question, so this thread might be a good place to start, and continue to ask questions if necessary.

[Neil Russell]

Sorry for the delay. What you see is not necessarily what you get! I agree that a galaxy is the standard flattened disc shape orbiting a central mass. In the scenario I am proposing you have a cloud of newly released hydrogen following the spiral path outward, therefore stars on that path have opportunity to "refresh" with new hydrogen and"light up" I would therefore expect the spiral arm to have the same density of stars as the overall galactic disc, the difference being more "lit' stars within the spiral arm, which is what we see?
Be fair, sometimes if it looks like X, it really is X!!

[captain swoop]

How does the Hydrogen get into the stars to 'Refresh' them?

[rodin]

Could the spiral arms of a galaxy be ejected along the axis of a centrally spinning object? Could this be where the recycling (which I think likely) occurs?

This would mean the central supermassive object having an axis in the galactic plane. I share the OP's view of the nature of these supermassive objects

[rodin]

How does the Hydrogen get into the stars to 'Refresh' them?

Can I answer?

If the supermassive black hole is collapsed matter (essentially neutrons) and there is a force large enough operating along the spin axis to chuck these neutrons out you have hydrogen production

[slang]

Can I answer?

If the supermassive black hole is collapsed matter (essentially neutrons) and there is a force large enough operating along the spin axis to chuck these neutrons out you have hydrogen production

That's not an answer to the question, is it? The question was not: "how can you have hydrogen production?".

And did you not see Nereid's response to your other question, when Neil asked the same thing?

[rodin]

That's not an answer to the question, is it? The question was not: "how can you have hydrogen production?".

And did you not see Nereid's response to your other question, when Neil asked the same thing?

maybe I missed the response by Neried though I did read the thread first. But my answer does answer the question of how to refresh stellar hydrogen. If hydrogen is being fired into space it will be gravitationally drawn towards mass. Of course to escape the black hole/collapsed mass it has to get far enough away from its grav field so that the pull of stars in the spiral is stronger. However looking at the jets from quasars, is this inconceivable?

rotate a quasar - get a spiral galaxy?

edit

I just realised it was the other (longer) thread I read and that there are two similarly entitled. I will catch up now.

[rodin]

Following on from my first thread there must be some way that matter is recycled to create more hydrogen to fuel the star process.

The Black Hole can hold the answer, it takes in matter and compacts it down hugely, I would suggest that it achieves this by "stepping down" our atoms through the sub atomic periodic table, at each level the particles take up less and less space.
The black hole compacts matter below the level where electromagnetic particles are created or exist, this being the case you will not see light etc coming from a black hole.
We can now suggest that the escape velocity is less than the speed of light for a black hole, therefore it is possible for a black hole to eject matter if its rate of spin exceeds its escape velocity.
The matter ejected from the black hole would recombine to form the first element, hydrogen.
The pictures of spiral galaxies show us their spiral shape, which is similar to the pattern shown by a catherine wheel firework, in other words it suggests material thrown from a spinning body.

On 13/8/2002 the Subaru Telescope announced it had discovered an exploding galaxy 14 billion light years away, they stated that clouds of hydrogen moving at several hundred kilometres per second were coming from the centre of the galaxy.

I would like to think this the answer of how an infinite universe recycles itself.

While this idea does not account for spiral galactic structure (I think) it is in line with an old thread I ran about the universe being in a fission/fusion cycle

[Nereid]

Sorry for the delay. What you see is not necessarily what you get! I agree that a galaxy is the standard flattened disc shape orbiting a central mass. In the scenario I am proposing you have a cloud of newly released hydrogen following the spiral path outward,

What would be the radial speed (component of velocity in a direction radial to the centre) of this H?

What would its circular speed (component of velocity in a direction transverse to the radius, in the plane of the disk) be?

therefore stars on that path have opportunity to "refresh" with new hydrogen and"light up" I would therefore expect the spiral arm to have the same density of stars as the overall galactic disc,

What density would that be (expressed in whatever units you choose)?

the difference being more "lit' stars within the spiral arm, which is what we see?
Be fair, sometimes if it looks like X, it really is X!!

Sure.

The scientific question to ask is (well, one of them) how can one tell (whether it really is X)?

In this case, what tests can you propose (to tell if it really is X)?

[Nereid]

Could the spiral arms of a galaxy be ejected along the axis of a centrally spinning object? Could this be where the recycling (which I think likely) occurs?

This would mean the central supermassive object having an axis in the galactic plane. I share the OP's view of the nature of these supermassive objects

Same question as in my last post, but for you: What would be the radial speed (component of velocity in a direction radial to the centre) of this H?

One more: what observational constraints - per relevant peer-reviewed papers - are there on this idea?

[rodin]

Same question as in my last post, but for you: What would be the radial speed (component of velocity in a direction radial to the centre) of this H?

One more: what observational constraints - per relevant peer-reviewed papers - are there on this idea?

I was making a qualitative hypothesis to explain the shape and chemical structure of say spiral arms. Don't you think it fits the observation? As for equations and peer-reviewed papers I have none as yet. I am just trying to describe a possibility in principle for now, not saying it must be so. Previously though I did some work that suggested experimenters have detected a possible inertial component to gravity. I ran a thread on this for a while

[Nereid]

I was making a qualitative hypothesis to explain the shape and chemical structure of say spiral arms. Don't you think it fits the observation?

What I think, as of now, is surely irrelevant, isn't it?

It's your ATM idea (well, Neil Russell's); if you cannot answer the question, please just say so.

But since you ask, I think time spent learning at least a high level summary of what the relevant observations show would be time well spent (and I'm disappointed to see yet another proponent of an ATM idea having, apparently, not bothered doing even the most basic background work first ...).

As for equations and peer-reviewed papers I have none as yet. I am just trying to describe a possibility in principle for now, not saying it must be so. Previously though I did some work that suggested experimenters have detected a possible inertial component to gravity. I ran a thread on this for a while

Then why not "get thee to a library" (to quote Celestial Mechanic, do your homework, and then start a new thread with something more than word salad?

[captain swoop]

Rodin Please do not hijack this thread, Nereid please do not respond.
If Rodin wants to continue this then he can start a thread of his own.
Please concentrate on the OP
Thank You

[rodin]

Rodin Please do not hijack this thread, Nereid please do not respond.
If Rodin wants to continue this then he can start a thread of his own.
Please concentrate on the OP
Thank You

OK.

The OP idea that centrifugal force may be able to throw off neutrons from a spinning collapsed core is refreshingly simple but I must ask some questions about how such material would aggregate first in the appropriate place.

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, shock horror, but I have no maths, so I can make observations, but sorry I cannot follow with math type theories. Sadly I will have to leave that up to others who hopefully I have sparked some interest in my suggestions!!
Rodin has helped with the hydrogen production , but I am surprised at the level of break down people are theorizing, I would suggest that to get the contraction of matter required ( someone with maths please help) that the break down will be several atomic levels lower than neutrons? way down.

[Nereid]

Nereid, shock horror, but I have no maths, so I can make observations, but sorry I cannot follow with math type theories. Sadly I will have to leave that up to others who hopefully I have sparked some interest in my suggestions!!

Speaking for myself only, this is depressingly familiar ... ideas are cheap, anyone can have one ... and the ones you have presented here in this thread are not new to this part of the BAUT forum, not by a long shot.

Rodin has helped with the hydrogen production , but I am surprised at the level of break down people are theorizing, I would suggest that to get the contraction of matter required ( someone with maths please help) that the break down will be several atomic levels lower than neutrons? way down.

There's a question of mine that requires no math, but goes to the heart of the matter (so to speak):

The scientific question to ask is (well, one of them) how can one tell (whether it really is X)? In this case, what tests can you propose (to tell if it really is X)?

Would you please have a go at answering this?

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, i repeat my X question, is the gravitational attraction of a black hole light speed (current theory) or as I suggest the reason light is not emitted from a black hole is because the black hole compresses mater below the level where light(photons) exist?
To prove or disapprove this measuring the deflection of light beams passing close to black holes to see if there is variations could be one step.At the least it would show that the gravity of a black hole is related to its size (which we would expect) it could even allow us to measure that gravity as say compared to our sun?
There is a conundrum with the existing black hole theory, they all have gravity equal? to light speed, so do they have the same gravitational attraction, whether small or large? then if the attraction is proportional to mass (again as you would expect) would that not allow large black holes to accelerate incoming matter faster than light?
Be fair some "cheap" ideas do work out to be right.

[Nereid]

Nereid, i repeat my X question, is the gravitational attraction of a black hole light speed (current theory) or as I suggest the reason light is not emitted from a black hole is because the black hole compresses mater below the level where light(photons) exist?
To prove or disapprove this measuring the deflection of light beams passing close to black holes to see if there is variations could be one step.At the least it would show that the gravity of a black hole is related to its size (which we would expect) it could even allow us to measure that gravity as say compared to our sun?

(bold added)

How could such deflection be measured?

What deflection would be expected, under your ATM idea? What deflection would be expected under standard astrophysics?

There is a conundrum with the existing black hole theory, they all have gravity equal? to light speed, so do they have the same gravitational attraction, whether small or large? then if the attraction is proportional to mass (again as you would expect) would that not allow large black holes to accelerate incoming matter faster than light?
Be fair some "cheap" ideas do work out to be right.

Do they? For example (astrophysics only please)?

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, if it was possible to measure deviation of light past our sun in 1919( following Einsteins theory) I was hoping modern astronomers might be able to do the same now for black holes?
Deflection? come on, you're the maths man, would it not be reasonable treating light as any other body travelling past a large gravitational body to expect light to orbit the body, or 180 degree turn etc down to minor deviations the further from the body? it passes.
The ancient Greeks correctly placed the sun as the center of the solar system.

[Nereid]

Nereid, if it was possible to measure deviation of light past our sun in 1919( following Einsteins theory) I was hoping modern astronomers might be able to do the same now for black holes?

I don't follow ... are you saying you do not know how "measuring the deflection of light beams passing close to black holes" could be done?

If so (that you don't know), how would you know if any measurement of any such deflection were a valid test of your ideas (or not)?

Deflection? come on, you're the maths man, would it not be reasonable treating light as any other body travelling past a large gravitational body to expect light to orbit the body, or 180 degree turn etc down to minor deviations the further from the body? it passes.

What I, Nereid*, think might, or might not, think is reasonable is surely pretty irrelevant, isn't it?

After all, it's your ATM idea that's under attack here!

Here are my two questions again; please answer them directly.

How could such deflection be measured?

What deflection would be expected, under your ATM idea? What deflection would be expected under standard astrophysics?

The ancient Greeks correctly placed the sun as the center of the solar system.

Indeed.

That was many centuries ago.

In particular, it was well before the start of what is generally regarded as the birth of modern science (at least in the West), around the time of Galileo, Newton, etc.

Can you give some examples of ""cheap" ideas do work out to be right" from the last century (or so)?

* you might like to check the etymology of this word

[Neil Russell]

Nereid, again come on, surely you know how the 1919 experiment was conducted? during an eclipse of the sun observers noted the deviation of light caused by the sun, of the light of stars passing behind the sun.
Now in theory astronomers should be able to observe and hopefully measure such deviations of light from stars passing behind black holes( at least they will not have to wait for an eclipse!)
You should reasonably expect that the deviations observed will equate to the gravitational attraction of the body being studied. From the deviations so found you could also expect to gain approximations of gravity for those bodies by comparing to known bodies, such as our sun?

[Nereid]

Nereid, again come on, surely you know how the 1919 experiment was conducted? during an eclipse of the sun observers noted the deviation of light caused by the sun, of the light of stars passing behind the sun.

What I know, or don't know, is not relevant, is it?

After all, it is ATM ideas presented by you that I am questioning (and, maybe, challenging)!

FWIW, I have been hanging around this section of BAUT for a long time, and have learned to never take anything for granted.

Now in theory astronomers should be able to observe and hopefully measure such deviations of light from stars passing behind black holes( at least they will not have to wait for an eclipse!)
You should reasonably expect that the deviations observed will equate to the gravitational attraction of the body being studied. From the deviations so found you could also expect to gain approximations of gravity for those bodies by comparing to known bodies, such as our sun?

OK, that's an answer to my first question ... but this doesn't answer my second question, does it?

Here it is again: What deflection would be expected, under your ATM idea? What deflection would be expected under standard astrophysics?