Are SMBH Black Holes Galaxy Factories?

[coliver]

This may be the answer to overturning the big bang theory once and for all but may hit upon the same brick walls that prevent publications contrary to mainstream ideas? Subscribing to a new theory proposed by Sir Martin Rees and Joe Silk that SMBH Black Holes may be involved in galaxy creation. And in light of further evidence stemming from my previous post on bautforum.com "Does a fish know its in water" suggests that perhaps the long GRBs from 2 to 500 seconds are instrumental in creating galaxies one by one, with High Energy Gamma Radiation creating new Protons, Electrons etc.. This is further evidenced by Ghost Galaxies which suggest something other than gravity holding them in orbit. I am also speculating that the spacetime that surrounds us may be oscillating nuetrinos moving in all directions at c. My thinking is this could be big news to Steady Sate proponents as well as Plasma Cosmology? Readers can check out my post on baut for more info or clarification. Comments?

[MattEU]

You got a link to your post? I don't want to have to look around that site, it makes me angry and sad at the same time...

[coliver]

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... water.html

The referenced link to my discussion on Baut. In particular my discussion with RussT.

[coliver]

You got a link to your post? I don't want to have to look around that site, it makes me angry and sad at the same time...

I hear you.. It often seems to be an organized attempt at discrediting anything that doesnt agree with mainstream ideas, doesnt it?

[Lloyd]

* Here's how galaxies likely form: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... aster2.htm

As the quasars move away from their origin within the galactic nucleus, their redshift properties begin to decrease until they reach somewhere near z = 0.3. At that point, the quasar resembles a galaxy, albeit a small one. The inertial moment of ejection is eventually overcome and the mass of the quasar increases while the speed of ejection decreases, until it may become a companion galaxy. It is in that way that galaxies form and age, evolving from highly redshifted quasars, to small irregular galaxies, and then into larger barred spirals.

* This TPOD explains that GRBs are not nearly as distant as thought and are therefore not nearly as energetic as thought.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/12 ... nomers.htm

Here we see investigators, though openly "baffled," still refusing to think outside their models, even when direct observation contradicts them. One radical possibility they're not considering is that their fundamental assumptions about gamma-ray bursters (GRBs) are incorrect -- they are not generated by the death of a massive star, their ideas about star formation and the nature of stars are incorrect, and the energies of the explosions are far less than standard theory calculates.

* This one says as follows.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... yburst.htm

... are the gamma ray bursts an unknown form of hypernova? Or are the redshift distances to their host galaxies greatly exaggerated, and the explosions much smaller?
New light was shed on this question by a gamma ray burst on December 3rd, 2003 (GRB 031203). This burst was identified with a closer galaxy, only about 1.3 billion light years away (by the redshift assumption.) This burst was thoroughly studied for months by an armada of space and ground-based observatories. Astronomers concluded that this was the closest cosmic gamma-ray burst on record, but also the faintest. This led the researchers to ask whether gamma ray bursts come in a variety of sizes.
The other possibility is that the variation of intensity between distant and nearby gamma ray bursts is one more layer of evidence that redshift is not an accurate measure of distance. The high-redshift gamma ray burst and the low-redshift gamma ray burst may have been of similar intensity, but astronomer's assumption that one is much farther away has made it appear much brighter. Since gamma ray bursts are common events (about one a day is detected, although only a few are identified with host galaxies), perhaps they will become the crucial observation that brings the redshift/distance distortion into better focus.
If that happens, we will find ourselves living in a completely new universe that didn't begin in a big bang and isn't expanding. And in this new universe, galaxies give birth to quasars, which grow up into new galaxies. The gamma ray bursts may be the electromagnetic cry of a newborn galaxy.

[coliver]

During my discussion with RussT on Baut Forum we discussed how Long GRBs from 2-500 seconds may be instrumental in galaxy creation. As opposed to Quasars which EU theorists predict and in opposition to mainstreams Big Bang. The ideas presented were that the entire universe is like an ocean of Nuetrinos moving at C and that SMBH Black Holes are a kind of recycling plant creating baryonic matter. The magnetic fields produced by the GRBs could be causing electrons and positrons to fuse and creating Protons in the Xray Phase over hours or days. Essentially producing HI which would later form HII and result in a galaxy void of heavy metals or a Ghost Galaxy. If this is correct then it could bridge many of the differences between mainstream and EU proponents. Electricity and Magnetism are at the core since Plasma is the starting point. I dont know how long the thread will be up since they are doing evrything they can to close it.