Elderly Black Hole in the Infinite Universe

PSI Blog 20200518 Elderly Black Hole in the Infinite Universe

It had to happen. Finally, astronomers have found a bare-naked black hole—it has no stars around it. And it’s only 1,000 light years away. Now, according to anyone’s theory, black holes form at the center of galaxies. What prey tell could this one be doing all by itself? Why is it not surrounded by a galaxy full of stars like all its sisters complying with the 13.82 billion-yr universe? Now, as we have mentioned previously, “black holes” are not “holes” and they are not black. They are the nuclei of galaxies much like the one found in the Milky Way recently.

A naked black hole probably means it is what happens to a galaxy when, given enough time, all its surrounding stars and planets have been pushed into it, jamming all those neutrons and electrons into an extremely dense body. That would have taken a very, very, very long time. The Milky Way is supposedly only 13.7 billion years old, and yet its black hole is less than 1% of its mass—an indication of its youthfulness. The nuclei of cosmological vortices gradually become increasingly dense and increasingly massive over time. The Sun, for instance, has 99% of the mass of the solar system, and it will last at least another 4.5 billion years. In “Universal Cycle Theory” we speculated that the Milky Way, because its nucleus is so tiny, will take trillions of years to fully mature.[1]

In tune with our speculations on the Milky Way, the naked black hole probably is trillions of years old. Looks like Big Bangers will have to invent a new ad hoc to handle that falsification!

[1] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].


Glenn Borchardt said...

From Pierre:

Hello, Glenn!

The first thing that pops to the eye is how wrong the animation is. We see a bright bluish light and a faint reddish one both circling around the center point of an an elliptical path. This is physically impossible. For such an orbital configuration to exist, both objects would have to be of the same mass. If otherwise, then the lighter of the two objects would be seen orbiting one of the ellipse's focal point, not the center. This is plain Keplerian mechanics.

Secondly, black holes, by their strict definition, are mathematical singularities that correspond to nothing than can possibly exist in physical reality. Astrophysicists are so excited by the concept that they will call « black holes » any mass that they can’t see. Rivinius says « An invisible object 4 times the mass of the sun can only be a black hole ». Sorry, but I can pretty well imagine a star 4 times the mass of the sun with gravity so strong that it’s visible EM emission would be redshifted to radio or even longer wavelengths.

The most likely explanation to what we see is an ancient red giant that collapsed to smaller than a neutron star, leaving behind only its main sequence companion on a decaying orbit, but admittedly, this would not make headlines! That being said, your conclusion remains: the phenomenon would take a lot more time to form than the age of the universe.

Of course, this is just the opinion of the amateur that I am. I’ll welcome you to validate this with an astrophysicist of your choice who has no vested interest in fame!


Pierre Berrigan

Glenn Borchardt said...

Well said, Glenn.