Galaxy Formation -- Page 4

Gigantic Galactic Expanding Gas Shells

asdfgsfd

Gravitational Force Law & the Missing Mass

asdfgsfd

Double-Lobed Irregular Galaxies

asdfgsfd

Radio Galaxies

asdfgsfd

Active Galactic Nuclei

asdfa

Nonthermal radiation

dasfasdf

Single Objects

adsfadf

Seyfert Galaxies

adfas

Quasars

After Gamma Ray Bursts, Quasars are the most luminous objects that have been spotted in the universe so far. The amount of radiation that Quasars give off is so great that it is hard to believe. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, gives off approximately 10 billion times as much radiation as our sun. But quasars--if they really are as far away as their redshift predicts--give off hundreds of times as much radiation as our galaxy!

What makes Quasars even more amazing is how they give off this radiation from an amazingly small volume of space. A typical galaxy may be tens of thousands of light-years across, while Quasars are estimated to be only a few light-days across! (They are predicted to be this small because their light output can vary so quickly they would have to be as small as the distance light would travel during the variation.)

The Ball-of-Light Particle Model predicts Quasars are decaying balls-of-light. More specifically, they are the fourth energy level in a series of at least 6 levels of decaying objects.

To summarize the 6 different levels:

1. A ball-of-light that originally contained all of the energy in the universe decayed by splitting in two. This started the Big Bang. This answers the question, "Why does our area of the universe appear to be right-handed?"
2. The two initial halves of the universe decayed, creating many smaller balls-of-light. This explains why there are huge super bubble structures in the universe.
3. These smaller objects decayed into another level creating the cores of galaxies. (These explosions are called Gamma Ray Bursts.) The most massive galaxies in the centers of superclusers--e.g., Virgo's M87 which is still ejecting new galaxies with its massive jet, and Fornax's NGC 1399--are likely left over remnants of these decaying balls-of-light.
4. Galactic cores are decaying, creating stars.
5. Stars are decaying into elementary particles.
6. Elementary particles are decaying into light.

If the Ball-of-Light Particle Model is correct, then there should be certain observations related to Quasars:

• Quasars should give off energy at all wavelengths -- not just in visible portion of the spectrum. The reason is: if Quasars are balls-of-light, then on the surface of their cores are massive waves of electric and magnetic fields. These massive fields would induce Photons at all wavelengths. (Quasars give off nonthermal radiation hundreds of times as much as Giant Elliptical Galaxies give off thermal radiation.)
• They should give off this energy from a very small volume of space. (Presently, astronomers estimate Quasars are light-days or light-weeks across.)
• Quasars should be seen that appear as explosions. (In many cases, Quasars do indeed look like explosions.)
• Quasars should be seen that appear to be splitting into two or more smaller objects. (Many quasars have been found in pairs. However, at present, astronomers believe they are examples of mergers instead of splits.)
• Since Quasars are galactic cores in their early stages, active galactic cores should resemble Quasars in many aspects. (Active galactic cores do indeed resemble Quasars.)
• Since Quasars are galactic cores in their early stages, there should be relatively few Quasars close to us -- because our galaxy is old. (Only one in every million galaxies that are close to us is a Quasar.)
• Since Quasars are galactic cores in their early stages, there should be a period in the history of the universe where most of them exploded or decayed about at the same time. (There was a period approximately 9 to 12 billion years ago when Quasars formed at a rate approximately 1,000 times as often as they now do.)
• Because the Ball-of-Light Particle Model predicts Quasars are ejected by Gamma Ray Bursts, before the bulk of Gamma Ray Bursts occurred, there should be very few Quasars. However, larger explosions might be visible. In other words, there may have been additional "levels" of explosions between what I call "level 2" and "level 3." (At distances more than 11 Billion years away very few Quasars have been spotted. Their occurrence does indeed seem to drop off.)
• Because decaying balls-of-light of light can decay rapidly, violently, sporadically -- or at the very least eject smaller balls-of-light that decay -- Quasars should appear to be variable. (This variability is observed. Some have been spotted that have had their brightness change by a factor of 10 in just a few days. It is what makes all other theories of Quasars more unlikely.)
• Because Quasars eject smaller balls-of-light that become stars and because these smaller balls-of-light eventually decay too, it should be expected that some will be surrounded by the beginnings of galaxies. (Quasars have been spotted that appear to have spirals or a light haze of stars around them.)
• Because Quasars are decaying balls-of-light, it should be expected that they eject balls-of-light of light in "blobs" like a Radio Galaxy.
• Because Quasars are ejecting balls-of-light and may be the parent of galaxies -- which includes spiral galaxies -- it should be expected that they have a spin and eject stars in ring patterns. (Measurements that have "proven" that Black Holes exist in the center of galaxies or Quasars also prove that balls-of-light exist in their centers.)

Often, Black Holes are used to explain Quasars. If they do, then how can Black Holes form quick enough -- in respect to the age of the universe -- to make Quasars -- which are obviously young -- but suddenly stopped making them about 9 billion years ago? Wouldn't the additional time from the last 9 billion years allow more Black Holes to form, and result in more Quasars, not less? Also, if massive Black Holes are needed to explain Quasars, then how do these extremely massive Black Holes eject massive "blobs" and "jets" of material?

Explaining the cores of galaxies in terms of giant balls of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields instead of Black Holes makes a lot more sense.

Black holes

Do you understand Newton's Law of Gravitation? If you are a professional physicist, a student of physics, an astronomer, an astrophysicist or a member of many other groups of scientists I would expect the answer is, "Yes!" You might even be offended that I ask such a question. I apologize. This is critical. The gravitational force law is a "static" law. This should bother every scientist who has ever studied Maxwell's Equations.

Newton's Law of Gravitation has not changed at all since he first created it! Its form,

F(g) = G m₁m₂/d²

is identical to that of the old electrostatic force law,

F(e) = q₁q₂/d²

The electrostatic law was found to be a subset of the dynamic form,

equation

Every scientist should immediately suspect that the gravitational force law should also be dynamic. Well, as it turns out, it is! The general equation for the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, E cross B equals G, combines the gravitational force law with electrodynamics and makes gravity a function of how fast a ball-of-light is moving. The faster a ball-of-light moves, the greater the gravitational force it has.

What has this got to do with Black Holes? Everything! If you work with Newton's Law of Gravitation, the end result is the prediction of Black Holes. If you work with E cross B equals G, the end result is the prediction of balls-of-light.

I still remember the first time I read Isaac Asimov's book, The Collapsing Universe. I purchased my copy in 1977 when I was a Sophomore in high school. This is when I first learned some of the details about Black Holes. This book reviewed: the known forces, the density of atoms, the density of planets, escape velocities, the density of sun, degenerate matter, the density of red giants, the density of white dwarfs, the density of neutron stars, and the density of black holes.

While the progression of every greater density made sense from one point of view, I did buy it! I could not believe that all of that matter was compressed into such a small volume! I felt that matter could not withstand the pressure. I felt instead, inside a Black Hole, the matter must be converted into energy. Instead of lots of compressed particles, a Black Hole was one particle. While the scientific community does not yet agree, I believe that I have proven this to be the case.

At first, I could not imagine how the energy at the surface of a Black Hole would act, interact, or even if it was at the surface as I imagined! When I later realized that there must be electromagnetic waves on the surface of the Black Hole, I was able to prove that the energy was indeed on the surface. The proof was simple, the fields on the surface of the Black Hole repelled each due electric and magnetic repulsion through the center of the sphere.

The electromagnetic surface waves were critical. I spent many years visualizing how they must act and interact. In later years I realized how these fields must be the same on elementary particles such as electrons and protons. Then I realized elementary particles were no different from Black Holes. When I realized every elementary particle could be explained as a "Black Hole," it didn't make sense to call them Black Holes anymore, so I started calling them "balls-of-light." That way, when I thought of traditional Black Hole theory, I called them "Black Holes," and when I thought of my slightly different theory, I called them "balls-of-light."

In Isaac Asimov's book, The Collapsing Universe, Asimov mentions "mini Black Holes" were predicted by Stephen Hawking as early as 1971, but he discounted them. As the years passed, it became a real personal vindication for my theory as the professional physicists kept predicting smaller and smaller Black Holes and discussed them as being more plausible. However, I never remember hearing anyone say that electrons, protons and other elementary particles are mini Black Holes!

At one point in college physics I realized that the same way I visualized the fields on the surface of elementary particles and black holes also applied to the electromagnetic fields in photons. At this point, I realized "Black" holes weren't black after all. They were "white!"

More years passed, and I later learned that professional physicists were predicting "White Holes" because the possibility that Black Holes might be able to radiate energy. I spent a lot of time worrying that all of my good ideas would be credited to others. For example, I predicted "Big Crunches" before I read that others were predicting them.

Schwarzschild Radius

In traditional Black Hole theory, a key detail is the Schwarzschild Radius. This is the critical radius defined by the General Theory of Relativity, within which a self-gravitating mass will become a Black Hole.

My question is this: has anything ever been proven to contract below this limit? I believe the answer is, "No."

A cornerstone of the Ball-of-Light Particle Model is this: objects of mass can not contract to the Schwarzschild Radius. Before an object contracts to this limit, the fields in the ball-of-light always stop the contraction -- always.

Thus, there is no limit to the amount of mass that can be "piled up." There is no limit to a star's mass, to a galaxy's mass, to the mass of any single object other than the entire mass of the universe.

An elementary particle's radius must be above the Schwarzschild Radius for that particle's mass.

Groups of Galaxies

adsfadf

Clusters of Galaxies

adsfasdf

Superclusters of Galaxies

adsfa

Gamma Ray Bursts

asd

Filaments, Voids, and the Bubbly Structure of the Universe

asdfa

Matter & Antimatter

adfads