Thoughts in Science
visitors
Black Hole Genesis
This was my first post:
Discover Magazine's April, 2003 article titled "In the Beginning, All Was --Black Holes?" may have hit the black hole on the head. It said that the early galaxies had more mature black holes than the standard model predicts.
I ask, wouldn't it seem reasonable that the singularity that preceded the big bang was, in theory, the mother of all black holes. When the bang occurred, the outgoing material would be black holes of galactic masses.
These black holes were sent outward, spinning at incredible rpm's. Outward may not have meant radially. When two black holes made near misses on each other, primordial material was ripped off in spiral shapes creating spiral galaxies. The primordial material coalesced into stars. My theory is that the early black holes preceded stars and were not created from them. This was "black hole genesis".
Clifford Lazar
Los Angeles
3/8/03, 3/10/03
This is my second:
Black Hole Genesis
Scientific American Magazine (July, 2004, Page 32) reports that Reinhard Genzel has discovered "...giant galaxies just a couple of billion years after the big bang...with mature stars.."
Again I suggest: Isn't it likely that the big bang was the mother of all black holes? Further, the first big bang products were massive black holes, some of which may have later banged.
What followed was a universe filled with
speeding and spinning black holes that made near passes on each other.
The near misses ripped the black holes’ event horizons, spewing primordial material, and later hydrogen and helium, which spiraled off the central black holes -- these were the first galaxies.
This theory seems to fit with the current data.
What would this theory predict?
1. The existence of a few free black holes.
1a. Evidence of free black holes
in the early universe.
(It was
announced 9/14/05 that astronomers found a free black hole 5 billion light years
from earth. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/14/homeless.black.hole.reut/index.html)
2. Evidence of distended galaxies, without evidence of a colliding galaxy.
3. Distant black holes could partially explain acceleration.
4. More abundant black holes could partially explain dark matter.
Sincerely,
Clifford W. Lazar
Los Angeles, CA USA
4 July 2004
Here is my third post:
Detecting Fast Spinning Black Holes
A way to detect fast spinning black holes is to observe
violet shifted and red shifted light that lenses around the equator of black
holes. The light that is lensed over and under the poles will be midway
in wave length. Lensed light over the poles will be red shifted but less
red shifted than the equatorial light.
Detecting Slow Spinning or
Non-Spinning Black Holes
A portion of the red shift detected by Hubble may in fact be due to effect of
slow or non-spinning black holes.
A way to detect slowly spinning or non-spinning black holes is to detect lensing of the origin light patterns with red shifts differing from the same light patterns but no apparent source of the lensing..
4/30/05, 5/1/05
This was sent to kstanek@cfa.harvard.edu on 8/3/05:
Clifford Lazar
8/3/05
Fourth Post
A Supermassive Black Hole, Forming in an Existing Galaxy, is Problematic
If a million solar mass star existed in a galaxy, its transition to a super nova, with a remnant black hole, would reduce the total mass of the black hole compared to the parent star simply because the debris that exploded would be expelled, even out of the galaxy.
Thus the concept of a second generation black hole, sucking in galactic matter, when the parent super massive star hadn't sucked in its neighbors, seems unlikely.
Why haven't super massive stars, which suck in their galactic neighbors, been discovered? The signatures of super massive stars sucking in galactic neighbors would be similar to black holes, except the light from the super massive stars would accompany the signatures.
Clifford W. Lazar
11/26/2008
black holes black holes black holes black holes black holes