View Single Post
  #10  
Old December 21st 17, 10:57 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

[[Mod. note -- I apologise for the delay in processing this article.
It arrived in my moderation queue on 2017-12-18, just before an
extended power/internet outage at my location.
-- jt]]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

In article , jacob navia
writes:

1) At z = 1000 we have a temperature of 2,728 degrees... Completely new
and unknown processes must have been at work to form structures like a
black hole at those temperatures.


Perhaps different than for stellar-mass black holes, but not necessarily
completely new and unknown.

And nothing less than a black hole of
1E4 solar masses. It seems (to me) impossible that gravity can condense
something at those temperatures.


Then read up on your physics.

2) At z = 40 we have a temperature of 112 K. Star formation happens in
clouds with temperatures between 10 to 20 K. Yes, 112 K is not "searing
hot", but hot enough to make star formation impossible.


Not all black holes must form from stars.

3) If we assume that star formation could happen at 50 K, i.e. at z =
17, approx 228 My after the bang, that leaves 690 - 228 --462 My to
form a black hole that has an 800 Msun mass...


Not all black holes must form from stars.

I am not saying that BB theory is impossible. I am just saying that
explaining observations within that framework becomes more and more
difficult, requiring more and more "ad hoc" hypothesis (now we have
primordial black holes)


Primordial black holes are neither an ad-hoc hypothesis nor were they
thought of first to explain this observation. Do a literature search
for "primordial black holes".

and requiring explanations that look less and
less probable.


By which measure?

And observations that contradict the bang start coming
almost daily now. ALMA has seen a galactic collision at 780 My and the
two galaxies are very dusty and huge... I will post another article
about that.


You have been claiming this for years, but have never come up with
anything which convincingly contradicts the big bang.


Well, maybe no outright contradicting the BB, but it doesn't agree with the
experimental evidence without inflation:

"Inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified -- BICEP did a wonderful
service by bringing all the Inflationists out of their shell, and
giving them a black eye." - Roger Penrose

"Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me-- I rapidly
formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
along" -- Neil Turok

And a "singularity" is certainly unphysical. It means the physics
has broken down. It would seem that alternatives might exist:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/pa...aul-steinhardt

http://clearlyexplained.com/answers/membranetheory.html