Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is The Rotation Curve A Supermassive Black Hole Phenomenon?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1358 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 06:30 AM

I wanted to find evidence of black holes playing a torsional role on the systems inside of a galaxy in such a way that maybe there are relationships which bind the two and can explain galactic rotation curve phenomenon. The article I am about to link to, explained there are such relationships between the orbital speed of the stars on the outer rim and the size of the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies:

 

http://www.cosmotogr...volution_2.html

 

I realized this could answer a problem that surfaced in cosmology not long ago: We look back 10 billion years and find that galaxies are behaving like they consist of ordinary matter. The cosmological world went abuzz and asked, ''where did the dark matter go?''

 

I realized this could be answered if the dark matter phenomenon was somehow linked intrinsically to the black holes at their galactic cores. The black holes would not have been supermassive 4 billion years years after big bang, or approximately 10 billion years ago, when the earliest galaxies were starting to form. And so, it seemed that this was a nice solution then to a weird problem: the reason those dark matter effects for galactic curves were not about, because their galactic core black holes were too small to account for it.

 

After some investigation, it seems like it may be a candidate to provide evidence of black hole torsional structure. It seems that the result of this galaxy losing its black hole could have resulted in the galaxies famous ''loose arms.'' Galaxy is called the Triangulum.

 

The core is surprisingly a nebula but there is more activity going on in the loose arms of the galaxy than what appears. Star formation should be happening in the center but surprisingly star formation is low. 

 

I am reading this right now, just understanding some basics of the rotation curves of M33.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909252

 

What was found was that there was nothing too peculiar about the rotation curves, but what I later found out was that there is in fact a lot of activity hiding behind the thick curtain of gas in its arms and there is black hole activity in there.

 

Then I found a second case to compare the theory, that black holes literally hold the structure of a spiral galaxy together in such a way, that the rotation curves will boil down to the same phenomenon. 

 

This galaxy seems to strengthen my hypotheses about M33. This galaxy had its supermassive black hole ripped away much earlier (or is that later?) than M33. The idea its black hole has been ejected is one of the top explanations apparently. What has happened, is not a collapse of the system, but stars are now diverging away from each other, its massive bulge that is still there - that bulge is created by a gradual separation over time, it probably was never that large.

 

http://www.dailygala...-milky-way.html

 

The bulge is a bit of a mystery, but it can be understood as the separation of the stars in the absence of the supermassive black hole that are now drifting apart. Likewise, M33 is such a case, albeit, an advanced one. It too is loosely separated, the arms are drifting off into space and loosing the rotational energy it once had. This galaxy we just looked at lost its black hole much earlier than M33 lost its supermassive black hole. 

 

The theory was strengthened enough that I have made a new post about this discovery. It's not that the rotation curves disappear when the central black hole disappears, it is that the structure itself will eventually fall apart - the rotation curves seem to be present so long as there is black hole activity. The galaxy which is 10 times the size of our Milky way, will eventually loose its bulge, it will deviate further and further away, maybe fall back on the galaxy and flatten out. There is still black hole activity going on in the arms of M33 and there is black hole activity going on inside of Abel 2261 which appears to be, helplessly, holding the structures together. As in the case of M33, the arms are loose and falling away from the center, which is direct evidence the entire spiral structure owes its structure to the supermassive black hole and if not present, will be overcome by the centrifugal force of the galaxy. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 03 July 2017 - 08:59 AM.


#2 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15451 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 12:26 PM

...The theory was strengthened enough that I have made a new post about this discovery. ...

There's no need for yet another thread repeating what you have already said in the other 3 or 4. This only strengthens the appearance of you as a troll.

#3 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1195 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 03:14 PM

Probably cause by the distant microgravity of the supermassive central black hole interacting with that of the black holes inhabiting the spiral discs of nebulae & stars of the galaxy. Enough to hold the matter surrounding the black holes together in keeping the galaxy from flying apart as it spins.

Edited by Super Polymath, 07 June 2017 - 03:15 PM.


#4 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1195 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 03:16 PM

Like a web of gravity

#5 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 650 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 04:02 PM

There's no need for yet another thread repeating what you have already said in the other 3 or 4. This only strengthens the appearance of you as a troll.

 

 

All of 006’s self-quoting masturbatory threads on this site should be merged into one supermassive black hole thread and sent to silly claims. I wouldn’t call him a troll, because he doesn’t seem to be interested in talking to anybody other than himself. I would call it a sort of math spam, though.

As for his math, I am not even convinced it is internally consistent, but I am sure it has no apparent relationship to observed reality. It is just a smoke screen for his theory of a rotating universe that has zero supporting evidence and certainly no reason to give it serious consideration  over existing theories of cosmology which do have the support of observational evidence.

He also mentions many times that he discusses his theory with “Matti” Pitkänen, author of Topological Geometrodynamics. That should be enough to send up some serious red flags! Birds of a feather, and all that! Here is what Physics Forums thinks: “Realize that this is complete crackpottery and not suitable for discussion on PF”

 

So why is it suitable to take up multiple threads here with something just as "crackpottery"?



#6 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 650 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 04:05 PM

Oh, but now I see he is finally gaining the sort of following he deserves!  :roll:

 



#7 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1195 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 04:50 PM

All of 006’s self-quoting masturbatory threads on this site should be merged into one supermassive black hole thread and sent to silly claims. I wouldn’t call him a troll, because he doesn’t seem to be interested in talking to anybody other than himself. I would call it a sort of math spam, though.

As for his math, I am not even convinced it is internally consistent, but I am sure it has no apparent relationship to observed reality. It is just a smoke screen for his theory of a rotating universe that has zero supporting evidence and certainly no reason to give it serious consideration  over existing theories of cosmology which do have the support of observational evidence.

He also mentions many times that he discusses his theory with “Matti” Pitkänen, author of Topological Geometrodynamics. That should be enough to send up some serious red flags! Birds of a feather, and all that! Here is what Physics Forums thinks: “Realize that this is complete crackpottery and not suitable for discussion on PF”

 

So why is it suitable to take up multiple threads here with something just as "crackpottery"?

Why is his math flawed exactly. Bold claim, with absolutely zero examples to back it up. 



#8 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1195 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 04:55 PM

I'm sorry for being skeptical but ya'll do this every-time another member agrees with me on anything. It's getting old. You were wrong about gravity, me & AFP displayed why exchemist is a phony when it comes to math (me in the is space 0g thread & AFP in the clocks that measure time dilation thread)...so. I mean this little pretentious coalition ya'll got going on is more active than us, but now ya'll have gotten into an admin account (buffy) so people will take you seriously. 

 

Ya'll don't know a thing about physics, you pull all your words off wikipedia. The real members, like me & 006, actually cite credible pdfs


Edited by Super Polymath, 07 June 2017 - 04:57 PM.


#9 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15451 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 05:10 PM

All of 006’s self-quoting masturbatory threads on this site should be merged into one supermassive black hole thread and sent to silly claims. I wouldn’t call him a troll, because he doesn’t seem to be interested in talking to anybody other than himself. I would call it a sort of math spam, though.

As for his math, I am not even convinced it is internally consistent, but I am sure it has no apparent relationship to observed reality. It is just a smoke screen for his theory of a rotating universe that has zero supporting evidence and certainly no reason to give it serious consideration  over existing theories of cosmology which do have the support of observational evidence.

He also mentions many times that he discusses his theory with “Matti” Pitkänen, author of Topological Geometrodynamics. That should be enough to send up some serious red flags! Birds of a feather, and all that! Here is what Physics Forums thinks: “Realize that this is complete crackpottery and not suitable for discussion on PF”
 
So why is it suitable to take up multiple threads here with something just as "crackpottery"?


It's a staff policy that we host the dregs no one else will. I'll leave it to them to justify the thinking.

You can click the Report button and voice your objections and you might see some-or-other minor scolding, but rarely will you see staff give warning points, use suspensions, or FSM forbid, ban someone.

#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1358 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 05:33 PM

There's no need for yet another thread repeating what you have already said in the other 3 or 4. This only strengthens the appearance of you as a troll.

 

 

Well actually, I found the second galaxy and that I thought interesting enough to warrant a post for it. Sorry you think this way.



#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1358 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 05:35 PM

 

As for his math, I am not even convinced it is internally consistent

 

 

 

As another post said and a statement I would tend to agree, ''prove it.''

 

There is nothing wrong with my maths at all. You have attacked me from day 1 since I came here. You're full of hot air, nothing more.



#12 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1358 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 05:13 AM

My friend Matti published an article in his blog concerning my observations.

 

http://matpitka.blog...d-galactic.html

 

Me:

 

''I can't work out if the primary role of a supermassive black hole, is aided by the roles of many more and helps keep a galaxy relatively stable even if the supermassive black hole becomes ejected by the collision of near by black holes. There are many black holes in the structures of these lonely galaxies and they all show tell tale signs of the centrifugal force overcoming any gravitational attraction - which of course doesn't seem to be the case for stable galaxies that still retain their massive partner. So there appears to be a direct relationship to establish.''


Edited by Dubbelosix, 11 June 2017 - 05:18 AM.


#13 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1358 posts

Posted 03 July 2017 - 09:49 AM

Me

 

''The binding energy of a galaxy like our own will need to have a binding energy equal or approx. equal to

E = GM^2(spiral)/R ~ 10^61 ergs


The galaxy harbours a black hole. The energy of that hole is

E_BH = M_BHc^2 = GM^2(BH)/R ~ 10^61 ergs

The equality of both of these solutions would be to imply that the entire binding energy of the spiral galaxy is associated to the black hole.

We know now there is evidence for this as a study of some rare galaxies in absence of supermassive black hole cores seem to either

1) Fall apart slowly due to the centrifugal forces

2) Or display a common characteristic of the spiral arms becoming more detached over time.

It's like that perhaps (nearly the entire) binding energy holding a galaxy is held together by the core massive hole. Black holes in the arms will be able to hold certain structures together over lengthly periods of time I suspect. These black holes will probably correct how much binding energy is holding a galaxy together.
''

 

 

 

Matti P.

 

 

''You say that blackhole mass is equal to galactic binding energy. But can one say that binding energy is associated with the blackole. In any case, the notion of binding energy when represented as interaction potential energy is problematic. Certainly in GRT where also the notion of energy is problematic. And also in QFTs. In TGD framework I would like to get rid of the notion of potential energy altogether and wrote quite recently an article about how the mathematics of Yangians could allow to understand the generation of bound states and also of binding energy.''



#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1358 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:19 AM

It was clear something was incompatible in the model. Matti suggested the size of these early black holes had to be much more massive than we know in theory. Turns out there is evidence for this

 

http://www.wired.co....ter-black-holes

 

Early on, myself and Matti concluded the antimatter problem (of where it went to) 10 billion years ago could be answered if black holes were not large enough (whatever the mechanism, there seems to be a direct relationship between rotation curves and black hole size). It seems that this is not always the case, some of these black holes did manage to get supermassive in only 100,000 years! This means this hypothesis we have suggested is testable! Rotation curves need to be measured for these supermassive black holes with a million solar masses. Not only that but they have to be compared with other cases and we will notice if we see the rotation curves after a certain size or threshold.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 04 July 2017 - 02:20 AM.


#15 Vmedvil

Vmedvil

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 16 February 2018 - 04:21 AM

It was clear something was incompatible in the model. Matti suggested the size of these early black holes had to be much more massive than we know in theory. Turns out there is evidence for this

 

http://www.wired.co....ter-black-holes

 

Early on, myself and Matti concluded the antimatter problem (of where it went to) 10 billion years ago could be answered if black holes were not large enough (whatever the mechanism, there seems to be a direct relationship between rotation curves and black hole size). It seems that this is not always the case, some of these black holes did manage to get supermassive in only 100,000 years! This means this hypothesis we have suggested is testable! Rotation curves need to be measured for these supermassive black holes with a million solar masses. Not only that but they have to be compared with other cases and we will notice if we see the rotation curves after a certain size or threshold.

 

Gravity's Range is Infinite felt from one side of the universe to another, and here is your rotation curve of Sag A our galaxy's SMBH which does not have a Relativistic Jet and Others that have a Relativistic Jet,

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3246.pdf

 

https://www.spaceans...ive-black-hole/

 

https://academic.oup.../3/1621/1013755

 

http://www.dailymail...ys-history.html

 

https://www.eso.org/...no133-26-30.pdf

 

 

Here is a proof that Stars do Orbit the SMBHs

 

https://phys.org/new...black-hole.html

 

https://www.aanda.or...aa22765-13.html

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03490

 

https://phys.org/new...black-hole.html

 

https://www.research...ject_with_MAGIC

 

https://www.eso.org/...no133-26-30.pdf

 

 

The Rotation rate and Shape of the SMBH has some relationship to the Rest Mass and Relativistic mass of it.

 

RfUzuNW.jpg

 

bh_schematic.jpg

 

Going from Sphere to Egg shaped as high Rates of Rotation deform the BH.

 

 

At Rest not rotating BH "Schwarzchild Metric" Low Mass.

 

eq0029S.gif

 

Rotating "Kerr Metric"

 

I15-61-Kerr.jpg

 

729677main_pia16696-43_full.jpg

 

 

 

Charge and Rotating Blackhole which generates a Magnetic Field "Kerr-Newman Metric" which is Disk shaped from the Rotation's Deformation.

 

hea5yrB.png

 

Electric Charge of Rotating BH.

csokgaT.png

 

 

 

bhwiki2.jpg

 

faradayrotation.jpg

 

 

Something Interesting that could be done is this for a general Rotating BH Equation.

 

ΔdsKerr-Kerr-Newman2 = dsKerr2 - dsKerr-Newman2

 

or

 

ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Newman= dsSchwarzchild2 - dsKerr-Newman2

 

or

 

ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr= dsSchwarzchild2 - dsKerr2

 

or

 

ΔdsKerr-Schwarzchild=   dsKerr2 - dsSchwarzchild2

 

or

 

ΔdsKerr-Newman-Kerr=   dsKerr-NewmandsKerr2

 

or

 

ΔdsKerr-Newman-Schwarzchild=  - dsKerr-NewmandsSchwarzchild2

 

 

Even

 

 

 Δ2dsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Kerr-Kerr-Newman = ΔdsSchwarzchild-KerrΔdsKerr-Kerr-Newman2

 

Δ2ds2 Kerr-Schwarzchild-Schwarzchild-Kerr-Newman ΔdsKerr-Schwarzchild  ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Newman

 

Δ2ds Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild ΔdsKerr-Newman-Kerr  ΔdsKerr-Newman-Schwarzchild

 

 

 

 

Continued

 

 

Δ3ds2Schwarzchild-Kerr-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild  =   Δ2dsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Kerr-Kerr-Newman -  Δ2ds Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild 
 
Δ3ds2 Kerr-Schwarzchild-Schwarzchild-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild =  Δ2dsKerr-Schwarzchild-Schwarzchild-Kerr-Newman -  Δ2ds Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild 
 
Δ4ds=  Δ3ds2Schwarzchild-Kerr-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild  -  Δ3ds2 Kerr-Schwarzchild-Schwarzchild-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild

 

 

Or even deeper

 

CaxPt39.jpg

 

 

ss=3ds=  ds2Schwarzchild + dsKerr2 + dsKerr-Newman2

 

ss=3Δds2  ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr + ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr-NewmanΔdsKerr-Kerr-Newman2

 

 

ss=3Δ2ds2 =   Δ2dsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Kerr-Kerr-Newman Δ2dsKerr-Schwarzchild-Schwarzchild-Kerr-Newman  +  Δ2ds Kerr-Kerr-Newman-Kerr-Newman-Schwarzchild 

 

Or Mega Summation beyond Einstein's Convention.

 

ss=6Δds2 =  ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Newman2 + ΔdsKerr-Newman-Kerr2 ΔdsKerr-SchwarzchildΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr-Newman2 ΔdsSchwarzchild-Kerr2 + ΔdsKerr-Kerr-Newman 

 

ss=6Δds= 0, if all are describing the same BH which says the mass of the Blackhole is zero as the Gravity Dimension is null "-∅" for the BH in this form as all the solutions are against each other. I once had to try to explain this with the Hillbert Hotel to Mordred on Variable "ω" which is the angular momentum Dimension when it Nulled "-∅"  is how I know this works.

 

This being if the BH was Instantly Teleported somehow into a Universe without the Properties of Gravity or Mass from one that had those properties, that last form, as well.


Edited by Vmedvil, 16 February 2018 - 08:24 AM.