Wednesday, May 28, 2014

THE BLACK HOLE MASS ACCUMULATION PROBLEM

What if the galaxy’s center of mass contains not four billion solar masses but a sufficient number of solar masses to keep all stars in orbit around the center of mass without a “dark matter halo?”  Would not whatever decrease in the amount of “halo” be in effect equal to any increase at the center of mass and, thus, the right side of the primordial ledger would not change?  But would this then violate a time line for galaxy formation mandated by the big bang?  So, if the galaxies are older than the universe, this clearly is not logical, it makes no sense.  From The Encyclopedia of Physics (Lerner, 1991):  “The upper limit of stellar masses is about 100M[sun symbol]:  stars of larger mass are evidently not found because in the gravitational contraction stage the denser core forms first and provides sufficient heat and radiation pressure to disperse the remaining matter.”  [p. 1175].  Star formation is well within the big bang time line because there is a limit to a star’s mass.  Black hole mass singularities are apparently not so limited and are thus limited by the big bang time line in terms of how much mass they are “permitted” to accumulate by the canonical big bang time line.  Thus, the need for the “halo” of dark matter which, apparently, is made of “matter” which does not congeal into a center of mass as all other known matter does.  Nor is it detectable by any instruments and its utility, thus, is strictly for the purpose of maintaining the big bang time line based on the known black hole mass accrual rates.  It appears if the galaxy’s black hole, to eliminate the “halo,” must have x amount of mass and this amount could not have been accrued due to big bang time line limitations and observed a black hole mass accumlation rates, then there seems to be no question the big bang time line is given accomodation and the “halo” is the result of this accomodation, which means if a “halo” is not permitted then the galaxies are about 5-6 times older than the universe.

[http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/binarybh/]

No comments:

Post a Comment