New Galaxy Supports My Theory Of Black Hole Torsion On Galactic Composition

[Dubbelosix]

My theory still upholds, with a recent discovery in the last three weeks or so on social facebook media (from credible sources). No mention of black hole dynamics, yet the galaxy discovered showed no effects of dark matter at all.

 

I discovered from investigating other logs not related to that investigation that this galaxy is completely devoid of a central black hole. This is now a forth published galaxy supporting my theory that dark matter is in fact a recessional coupling of velocity to a torsional aspect of black holes (which may in fact be magnetic in nature using flux tubes found in Matti's TGD.)

 

https://rotationcurves.quora.com/

 

I said it was strong evidence regardless of this latest theory... but as always, on another forum, met with skepticism. I do not hold these views about dark matter for no reason - the same article casts considerable doubt on the Halo theory, only supporting my own [intuitive] hate for the theory, since it was not the simplest theory, yet for some reason, the most popular.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Super Polymath]

It might have evaporated.

[Super Polymath]

If black holes exist in the arms of disk galaxies, they will tend to create fluctuating effects that appear like recessional velocities... but sometimes when you know what to look for, some things may become obvious. Hopefully in time, a true relationship will be established between black holes and dark matter phenomenon as our science progresses.

I'm very aware of the evaporation rate it was crucial in moving my did hypothesis to theory, but in cyclic models if one survives a big crunch it will have already undergone quite a bit of evaporation. Enough so to bind a galaxy with low mass per unit volume in it's dying troughs of life. Edited April 3, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

You don't seem to understand the use of the word ''crucial.'' Only microscopic, or black holes to size of the average solar mass of a sun, evaporate quickly without external source. A supermassive black hole... is many many many times the mass of the star holding our star system together. It's the largest bodies known in existence... and because they are large, they are extremely cold meaning it has a very low rate of evaporation... so low in fact, they will outlive all bodies in the universe... they will be the last... ''frozen stars'' in the heavens.

oh I believe that there absolutely was a maximum solar mass BH at it's inactive center when it's photograph was taken. But being beneath the minimum for a supermassive black hole, we wouldn't have been attempting to spot anything beneath that minimum which would require much more sensitive observations.

 

Now, on the note of micro black holes, the only reason a solar mass black hole could bind a galaxy would be because it was lacking dark matter, those overgrown protons that are in most other galaxies

[Super Polymath]

Plus, second cosmic life cycle die hard SMBHs heat up when they get blasted at the birth of a new universe (in a cyclic cosmology of course)

[Super Polymath]

You still don't get it... will you please think before you speak. How can there be a supermassive black hole there at the time of photograph if the photograph is the state it was in at that time when it emitted that light? And that told us there is no supermassive black hole....

I didn't say supermassive, I said the maximum required for a solar mass black hole, which is beneath the minimum for a supermassive black hole. Which, looking for a supermassive designation for rotation around a non-quasar black hole, we would have certainly missed.