Astronomers are surprised that somewhat massive cores seem to be present in perhaps many or most if not all galaxies of the early universe, less than one billion years after the big bang. The rate of growth of these cores is some hundred times higher than (condensation) models predict. \u00a0 LaViolette points out that this is troubling for the big bang theory, as insufficient time would have elapsed for growth of the observed cores. \u00a0 And there is also a statement that the cores (or “black holes” as conventional astronomy calls them) seem to be growing in tandem with their host galaxies. \u00a0 This would seem consistent with the SQK model.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.physorg.com\/news\/2011-06-bblack-holes-surprisingly-common-early.html<\/a><\/p>\n ———————————-<\/p>\n Response to your posting:<\/strong> Working within the framework of conventional astronomy, this Chandra team has interpreted these X-ray sources as supermassive black holes. \u00a0But the\u00a0question that then arises is how would supermassive black holes of the size observed have grown to their present size in such a short time when there is not enough time even for their host galaxies to form. \u00a0Many big bang theorists would have felt more comfortable if no such X-ray sources had been observed at this great distance, for this finding is very embarrassing to the standard theory.<\/p>\n One extreme example is the unexpectedly massive, 2 billion solar mass quasar core\u00a0seen in galaxy ULAS J1120+0641<\/a> which is found at a redshift of 7.1. \u00a0If its redshift is entirely cosmological, this galaxy would be existing at just 400 million years after the presumed date for the big bang during the period when the fireball was still supposed to be in its plasma state and unable to form condensed matter. \u00a0The age problem is resolved when it is realized that the universe is not currently expanding, that there was no big bang creation 13.75 billion years ago, and that matter has been present in the universe for a much longer period of time, perhaps hundreds of billions of years.<\/p>\n Subquantum kinetics has predicted that such supermassive galactic cores would have existed in primordial times since matter creation occurring spontaneously within them would be responsible for the formation of the observed host galaxies. \u00a0Subquantum kinetics calls these cores\u00a0mother stars<\/em>, rather than supermassive black holes since subquantum kinetics precludes the formation of black holes. \u00a0It interprets these as dense celestial bodies whose collapse is prevented by the tremendous outpour of energy that is spontaneously created in their interiors. \u00a0It proposes that a galaxy forms through the continuous creation of matter within its supermassive mother star core and to a much lesser extent from matter created within its many\u00a0stars.<\/p>\n The Chandra team’s observation that these primordial supermassive bodies are a thousand times less massive and that their X-ray output is a hundred times fainter than nearby quasar cores\u00a0also fits the subquantum kinetics predictions in that SQK predicts that mother stars would gradually grow in size through continuous matter creation in their interiors.<\/p>\n To comment on your second point, this subquantum kinetics continuous creation prediction also accords with the Chandra team’s conclusion that these core sources had grown by a factor of 100 to a 1000 during the past 13 billion years, in tandem<\/em> with the growth of the galaxies they are embedded in. \u00a0As mentioned in another post<\/a>, astronomers are currently confused as to how a primordial black hole would have grown in size during this time through accretion since there is no sign that the host galaxies have been disturbed by galaxy mergers.<\/p>\n P. LaViolette Astronomers are surprised that somewhat massive cores seem to be present in perhaps many or most if not all galaxies of the early universe, less than one billion years after the big bang. The rate of growth of these cores is some hundred times higher than (condensation) models predict. \u00a0 \u2026 Continue reading
\nCommenting on the first of the above news items, the Chandra X-ray telescope has detected X-ray emitting galactic cores in 30% to 100% of the high-redshift galaxies it imaged. \u00a0This is indeed troubling for the big bang theory. \u00a0Based on their redshift, these galaxies existed just 800 to 950 million years after the supposed occurrence of the Big Bang. \u00a0The standard big bang theory claims that neutral matter did not begin to form until about 450 million years after the big bang when the formerly ionized plasma of the big bang fireball had cooled sufficiently. \u00a0This leaves just 350 to 500 million years for these primordial galaxies to form. \u00a0But the best galaxy formation model requires 750 million years for a galaxy to form. \u00a0So just seeing that such distant galaxies actually exist already places the big bang theory in jeapordy.<\/p>\n
\nNovember 2011, updated February 2013<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"