[Bored chemist]

Do you have a basic clue what is the explanation for that experimental fact?

Yes, I do.
Like I said before, I'm a spectroscopist. This is the stuff I'm trained to know.
That's why I find it to so easy to point out the errors in the stuff you post.
There's an explanation here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum

You don't have a basic knowledge in real science

That's just childish.
I'm not the one who thought that the CMBR was due to stars.

You are just highlight statements without any backup by real BBR articles.
That clearly shows that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science of black body radiation.

No, it does not.

From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.

You know how I said (a couple of times now, I think) that I'm a scientist who does this sort of thing for a living...
Who do you think WRITES articles?

That's why I'm not actually obliged to cite them; it would be redundant.

You claim that "you can get BBR from a person"
First it is your obligation to prove this statement.

If you actually knew the relevant science, you would accept it as not merely true, but obvious.
However, for the benefit of the kindergarteners

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1#c19
Which says
" within the range from 5 μm to 20 μm , the skin closely obeys the laws of blackbody emission".

I'm not stupid; if it wasn't true I wouldn't say it.
I leave making false statements to you. You make plenty, for example.

The average temp of a person is 37c.

No, that's the core temp, the skin is significantly cooler.

However, it is very clear that at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.

That's not how it works.The emission from the skin is determined by the temperature of the skin.
That is controlled by a number of factors- like drinking alcohol- but the physics doesn't care.
If the room is warmer than the person, the person still emits the same amount of IR.
But the room also emits IR that's pretty close to BBR and the person absorbs (at least some of) that.

Everything that is above absolute zero emits radiation - roughly in accordance with BBR. (In much better accordance with Kirchhoff's radiation laws)
(Again, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would already knowthat,but you are a bigoted fool so here's the wiki page for you.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation

Why is it that you say this

From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.

when it is you who is making up imaginary stuff about BBR?

A single photon doesn't carry any sort of BBR.

Nobody said it did.

I have clearly explained how the BBR could be created.

You haven't explained anything clearly, and you haven't explained BBR correctly- because you don't understand it.
That's why you can post nonsense like this

at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.

In reality, he emits at a rate determined by his temperature, not that of the environment he is in.

How much heat he absorbs from his environment is determined by the outside temperature, but that is another matter.

Therefore, if the Universe was compact at the early time, the radiation which might carry a BBR radiation during that early time had to cross the universe long time ago.

Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.
This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.

The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.

Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.

The idea that it is due to the early universe Era is a pure fiction!!!

That's the only possible way for it to be so evenly distributed.

Therefore, there is no way to keep the radiation in a finite aria even if we call that aria

Stop talking about songs, it makes it look like you are not paying attention.
Since the universe is expanding, the light takes longer to cross the  universe than the age of the universe.

there is curvature in the finite Universe - This is also incorrect and I have already proved it.

You haven't proved anything.
But, yes the universe is curved.
So what?

Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.

But, according to you, that is impossible.
The light would somehow" get cold" on the way.

Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.

If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.
But we see them.
So we know you are wrong.

This isn't the case, as the Universe isn't holding any radiation.

It isn't "holding" it, it is just that the universe id big. So big that it takes longer than the age of the universe for light to cross it.
That's why the light is still getting here.
And ew know that because we see it.

Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.

No we don't.
Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.
They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.
The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.

So, your idea is plainly wrong.

So, please - from now on you have to prove you’re the third option by real BBR article.

I already did.
You now have an article that says people more or less emit BBR.
And you know, because I already pointed it out, that.

you can get BBR from a person.
That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."

So you are obviously wrong.

Why don't you actually learn about BBR?
Then you can look less foolish in the future?

I wouldn't accept any more imagination from your side without real science articles about the specific subject.

I'm the one providing science.
But you have this teh wrong way round.
Al I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.
This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.

Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K
It is just imagination.
Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:05:32
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.

Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.

This is real.
The CMB in our Universe is direct radiation from all the stars and matter in our infinite Universe.
In order to prove that it is feasible, we can do the following:
Let's assume that we can eliminate the CMBR from our Universe.
Let's also assume that we can isolate our galaxy in some sort of a sphere.
This shere would be considered as isolated enclosure or Oven.
If we do so, we should find that the temp of that isolated enclosure is going up.
Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.
Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.
We would divide in to infinite no. of isolated enclosures.
Let's assume that the total matter in each isolated enclosure is the same everywhere.
Therefore, the temp in each isolated enclosure would be the same.
So, once we eliminate the walls, the infinite Universe should keep that 2.7K as well as the BBR.
Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.
If we would come back to the universe in 10 Billion years from now (or 100 Trillions Y), we would see a similar Universe with a similar CMBR.
Hence, this temp doesn't represent a transient situation in the CMBR due to the expansion as it is here to stay forever and ever.
Actually, based on the BBT that temp should be reduced by time.
I wonder what might be the change in the CMBR temp after 10 or 100 Years.
Is there any possibility to verify that change by using very accurate measurements tool?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.

If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.
But we see them.
So we know you are wrong.

No, you are wrong
We can observe the supernova, but for a very short time.
So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m, then this is the time duration that we can observe it.
No more than that.
So, it might take the supernova radiation 13 By to cross the space until it gets to us, but then we can observe it for only 10 minutes.
In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.
The supernova proves that there is no expansion in the Universe.
If there was, we could observe the supernova for many years or even million years.
Hence, as we can get the supernova radiation at the same duration as it really took place in the past without any sort of time extension, it proves that the radiation from the early Era of the Universe can't exist in the space more that its real duration of time.
Therefore, there is no expansion in space!!!

Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.
They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.
The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.

The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.
As  the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.

[Bored chemist]

Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K

That's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.
It always was.
It always will be.

Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.

No
We can measure the CMBT temperature; it's about 2.7K
It's an experimental observation, but you have such a poor understanding that you think it's something I imagined.

Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.
Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.

Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.
It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.

Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.

No
The stars would keep on heating it until it reached about the same temperature as the sun.
Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.

So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m

... then it wouldn't be a supernova.

In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.

Not a problem. The universe is still here.
It didn't last 10 minutes.
It has lasted about 14 billion years.
So the light carries on reaching us for14 billion years.
And, in another 14 billion years, exactly the same thing will happen, but the "14" will be replaced with"28".
No problem.

The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.

Nobody said it was.
But it is relevant to the temperature.

As  the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Anyway.

Al I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02
Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K

That's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.
It always was.
It always will be.

The idea of the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen is one more imagination, as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination era, then the whole idea is a pure fiction.
We clearly see today that activity of recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen at the accretion disc around the SMBH. If we could shut down the Mighty SMBH Magnetic field, not even one Hydrogen would be created.


 

Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.
It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.

I have already explained that issue.
However, I can do it again for you.
Olber paradox is correct as long as the Infinite galaxies in the Infinite universe won't move away from each other faster than the speed of light.
Olber didn't know that in our real infinite universe the far end galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light.
So, theoretically, we can claim that starting from a distance of R, we can't get a radiation from any galaxy that is moving away faster than the speed of light with reference to our location.
Therefore, although at any direction there are infinite no of galaxies, we can get the radiation from only the galaxies which are located at the sphere which is represented by R.
Hence, the CMBR is based ONLY on those FINITE galaxies in that R sphere which is just a minor point in the infinite Universe.
So again, although we are living in infinite Universe with Infinite Galaxies, we can get a radiation from only a finite no of galaxies.
Therefore, as the CMBR is based on a finite no of galaxies in an infinite universe, it could get to a maximal temp of 2.7K
Hence, from any location that we might be in that infinite galaxy, we can get a radiation from that limited R sphere. Therefore, we get a perfect symmetric radiation from any direction.

Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.

The Universe was here forever and it will stay forever and ever!!!
You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02
As  the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the expansion idea and the whole BBT fiction.
Once you confirm that the supernova from the early universe could last for only few minutes or few days, then it shows that the expansion has no impact on its duration.
Hence, if the expansion has no impact on the supernova, it surly has no impact on the radiation from the recombination era.
Therefore, if there was a radiation during the recombination era which last for X years, that X represents the maximal time duration that we could get a radiation from that era.

So, it is very clear that you want to believe in imagination.
The BBT is imagination.
The expansion is imagination
The Inflation is imagination.
However, you like it and also all the other "BBT scientists".
You all are locked inside the BBT black box without any ability or willing to unleash your Knowledge and break down the BBT chain that locks you so strongly.
I hope that at least you and the other "BBT scientists" enjoy your time in that black box.

[Bored chemist]

as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field.

Protons have a magnetic field, so do electrons.
Not that it matters much.

. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination era

Yes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.
You are the one writing fiction.

Olber paradox is correct as long as the Infinite galaxies in the Infinite universe won't move away from each other faster than the speed of light.

If they are moving away that fast then your "oven " cools down in a finite time to practically zero.
But we aren't at zero, so you are wrong.

Therefore, as the CMBR is based on a finite no of galaxies in an infinite universe, it could get to a maximal temp of 2.7K

No.
After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.

You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.

There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists- who understand physics.
And there is you, who doesn't.

It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills

Where did the mythical supernova come from?

Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
Al I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.
You are the one writing fiction.

So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field? What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?
Sorry, you are missing the most important impact of electromagnetic fild which is - Transformation of energy.
An infinite energy won't create even one single particle without EM.
Therefore, the Big bang energy wouldn't be transformed into even a single electron or proton without external EM.
Those electron and proton won't merge to hydrogen atom without external EM.
This is the meaning of real science!
So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy  transformation.
Sorry -  the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.

No.
After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.

As you don't understand how our real Universe works, you have no clue about new created star process.
You have no idea about the new particles/atoms/molecular that are created in the accretion disc around the BH/SMBH
Those atoms/molecular are used to form new stars in our Universe.
So, although galaxies are moving away from each other while stars might burn out - new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.
Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:59:58
It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the BBT

Where did the mythical supernova come from?

How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?
Some of those stars are located at a very far end of our Universe.
So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.
Those BBT scientists tell us that the radiation that took place at that Era should stay with us almost forever due to the expansion in space.
If that is correct then how it could be that the supernova radiation which comes almost from a similar time frame stay with us for just few hours or few days?
Why the expansion in space can't hold the supernova also forever as it does with the recombination era radiation?
Sorry - The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that  there is no space expansion in our Universe.
 

There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists- who understand physics.
And there is you, who doesn't.

Any scientist which accept the idea that somehow without external EM it is feasible to set Hydrogen Atoms from the BBT energy should be considered as BBT scientist.
Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.
Any scientist which believes in the BBT imagination should be considered as BBT scientist as there is no science in the BBT. It is pure imagination.
You are clearly part of those BBT scientists.

So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.
You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

No, we should share the same job for real science!!!
Unfortunately, there is nothing real in the BBT science.
I have backup any statement by real evidences and articles.
You think that you are master of knowledge in science, but you are master in BBT imagination.

It is very clear to me that you would keep the BBT under any contradicted evidence.
Therefore, you can keep on with this BBT imagination and call it "science" as long as you wish.

[Bored chemist]

So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field?

No.
You were the one who made up tosh about magnetism.
They have opposite electrical charges so they attract.
When they "join up" your get light.
That's how this sort of welder works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hydrogen_welding

But that's real so you will presumably ignore it.

What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?

There isn't one.
You made that up.

How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?

The early universe didn't have a "far end", or any stars.

So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.

No.
That's nonsense.
The recombination ear is long before any stars were at the start of their lives, never mind the ends of them.
You are talking unscientific nonsense.

So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy  transformation.
Sorry -  the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.

That is nonsense.
It's not what any scientist thinks.
It's just stuff you made up.

new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.

And that's where you break the laws of physics.
You can't just ignore the conservation laws.

Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.

No.
Not according to actual science.
If your idea worked then since a lot of the matter in the universe is in stars, the average temperature of the universe would be close to the temperature of stars.
About ten thousand times hotter than the CMBR.

If that is correct then

... it isn't.

The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that  there is no space expansion in our Universe.

The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.
There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.

Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.

No, they should be considered a scientist.
rather than, for example, someone who says that welders and arc lamps do not work, who should not be considered a scientist.

No, we should share the same job for real science!!!

Yes we should, and your part of that job is to provide the extraordinary evidence that you would need to back up your claim.

You can start now if you like.

First you have to explain why someone who doesn't know anything about science is right while all the actual scientists are wrong.

That's the really silly thing here.
You keep arguing as if it is just me who disagrees with you when, in fact, you are the only one "on your side" and everybody else knows you are wrong.

Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
All I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:38
The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.

The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.
There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.

Let me start with this issue

Supernova!!!
In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1000%2B0216
SN 1000+0216 was an extremely remote superluminous supernova (SLSN),
The distance (redshift) to this supernova z=3.8993 ± 0.0074 makes it the most distant supernova observed as of 2012.

So, we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993

The question is - at what distance this supernova is located.
As a reference let me use the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Quasar
The quasar lies at redshift z = 1.41 (8.7 billion ly),

So, if z=1.4 represents a distance of almost 9 BLY, it is clear that a redshift of almost 4 should represent a distance above 10 BLY.
That distance actually represents an age of above 10By.
At that time the Universe was still quite compact.

Our scientists claim that the recombination Era took place about 13,4 By ago.
Hence, if we assume that the age of that Supernova is over than 10 BLY we can assume that took place only about 3 By after the recombination era.
Conclusion:
If our scientists insist that due to the expansion in space, the radiation from the recombination Era could stay with us almost forever, then the radiation from a supernova which took place at still relativity early Universe (10BY ago) should also stay with us for very long time due to the same expansion in space
However, that isn't the case.
All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.
So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?
How could it be that the radiation from the early universe supernova (10Byago) couldn't stay longer due to the same expansion in space (with same rules of physics) which holds the recombination Era radiation almost forever?
Why do you set your "rules of physics" ONLY where you need it and totally ignore the impact of the same rules of physics on other radiations?

This is solid evidence that there is no expansion in our Universe!!!

If you still disagree with that - you prove that your "rules of physics" is all about science imagination and you really don't care about real science.

[Bored chemist]

Your latest mistake is to assume that the expansion has been constant over time.
That's not what the evidence says. So your whole post is based on nonsense.
If you learned some science, you could avoid doing that.

More importantly...
You say

we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993

And then you say

All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.

Which is plainly wrong.
If you red-shift something by a factor of nearly 4 it does not look the same.
That's how you know it has been red shifted.

So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?

They do.
The recombination radiation has been red shifted and the supernova radiation has been red shifted (by a factor of about 3..
It does "work the same way", but you don't understand the system well enough to see that.



Do you think anyone actually agrees with your idea that the laws of physics don't actually work?

Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 20:18:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27
Anyway.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29
All I am doing  is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.

You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.

You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".
So it it your job to prove that it is right, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.

You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

[evan_au]

This post was moved from:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84736.100

Quote from: evan_au on Today at 00:26:03
- Matter entering the event horizon is on a 1-way trip into the singularity.
- Once matter has reached the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
Quote from: evan_au on Today at 00:26:03
- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.
- Once matter has left the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???
In my understanding, that is THE most important issue in the entire universe.
More than redshift, more than space expansion, more than relativity velocity and even more than the BBT itself.
Our scientists hope that the matter in the accretion disc is due to falling stars.
However they have never observed any star as it falls in and they would never ever find one.
They clearly know that around the SMBH there is a massive process of new stars creation - but unfortunately, they don't even try to understand from where the matter for all of this star forming activity is coming.
It seems that they don't have a clue how the SMBH really works and now you also claim that they don't care about it.
OK
I can just tell you that if they would understand how the SMBH really works - They would understand how the spiral galaxy works and why it has its unique shape including - Bulge, Bar, Ring and spiral arms.
The dark matter idea can explain at the maximum the orbital velocity of stars around the SMBH, but it doesn't give any answer about the full shape of the spiral galaxy
So the questions are as follow:
1. How could it be that we observe so dramatic changes in the accretion disc of a SMBH without discovering even one single falling star?
2. Why there is so high density of Hydrogen around the SMBH?
3. Why most of the new star forming activity is taking place near that SMBH?
4. Why the Bulge has spherical shape, while after the bulge we observe the disc shape.
5. Why the Bar / Ring are there and why they have so unique shape?
6. Why the spiral disc shape is formed only from the bar/ring all the way to the end of the spiral arms?
7. Why the spiral arm is so thick near the base (From the ring 3KPC - about 3,000LY) while it is so narrow at the end 12KPC - 15KPC (only 400LY).

Can you please answer all the above questions by using dark matter?
I can promise you, that if you would be able to fully understand how the SMBH really works you would solve the enigma of the entire Universe!

So please, would you kindly reconsider your following message?:
"it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from"
Modify message
« Last Edit: Today at 07:14:15 by Dave Lev »