Black Holes, Galaxy Growth and Nassim Haramein

I don't know if many of you are familiar with Nassims work in theoretical physics, Scale Unification( a universal scaling law for all matter), Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equation and Grand Unification Theory, and Quantum processes with considerations of space-time torque and coriolis forces in surrounding media of black holes and vacum structures. Nassims theories rely heavily on black holes as a form of a perpetual return to singularity via gravity and subsequent electromagnetic resonance of matter back into the vacuum. Currently his theories have received a big boost by results just in from the American Astronomical society using the Very Large Array in Mexico.
Black holes lead to galaxy growth

Astronomers may have solved a cosmic chicken-and-egg problem -- the question of which formed first in the early Universe -- galaxies or the super-massive black holes seen at their cores.

"It looks like the black holes came first. The evidence is piling up," said Chris Carilli, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). Carilli outlined the conclusions from recent research done by an international team studying conditions in the first billion years of the Universe's history in a lecture presented to the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Long Beach, California.

Interesting stuff indeed. Here are a few papers from Nassim on the subject.
theresonanceproject.org...
theresonanceproject.org...

reply to post by atlasastro


so does that mean we are infact in a black hole? and thats why we cant see anything??

ohh noooessss hehe

My theory on how the universe got going is it GREW or was born..Not bang

bang = bull

forgot to say s+f

[edit on 15-1-2009 by theresult]

Originally posted by theresult
reply to post by atlasastro

 

so does that mean we are infact in a black hole? and thats why we cant see anything??

ohh noooessss hehe

My theory on how the universe got going is it GREW or was born..Not bang

bang = bull

Your theory sounds similar to Nassims in a way, and black holes are important to the generation of matter via electromagnetic resounace out of a returning of matter drawn by gravity into singularity. Althought how this feedback system, that geometrically appears as a double taurus, originally existed is another interesting matter and may have GREW or was BORN. Never the less this discovery supports Nassim' theory and I though it was worth sharing here in relation to the origins of the universe.

"It looks like the black holes came first. The evidence is piling up," said Chris Carilli, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)

I would like to ask, if black holes came first, then conventional models cant explain this, all the general model says that a star must die to form a black hole.

Any explanations for that.

I think this quote from the article in the OP explains Nassim' theories perfectly.

"This constant ratio indicates that the black hole and the bulge affect each others' growth in some sort of interactive relationship," said Dominik Riechers, of Caltech. "The big question has been whether one grows before the other or if they grow together, maintaining their mass ratio throughout the entire process."

This quote also asks some important questions as to the origins of this relationship and how it generates itself and the galaxies that result from it.

reply to post by peacejet

While this is true for stars, how do stars form in the first place. Black holes in this model(and Nassim's) would be needed to create matter via electromagnetic resonance that would eventually return to the black hole singularity via gravity.
This observation( the article in the OP) is supporting this Idea by showing this system may have been in existence before stars, but obviously as this is new, how black hole existed first is now a question that needs to be answered.

"To understand how the Universe got to be the way it is today, we must understand how the first stars and galaxies were formed when the Universe was young. With the new observatories we'll have in the next few years, we'll have the opportunity to learn important details from the era when the Universe was only a toddler compared to today's adult," Carilli said.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by peacejet

 

While this is true for stars, how do stars form in the first place. Black holes in this model(and Nassim's) would be needed to create matter via electromagnetic resonance that would eventually return to the black hole singularity via gravity.

If black holes created matter by electromagnetic resonance, it actually could not leave the balck hole. Matter has mass, and since gravity attracts mass, it would be attracted even before it escapes out to form the entire galaxy, just as how light cannot escape from the black hole.

Here is another article showing stars forming near black holes and may also lend support to Nassim's theories.

LONG BEACH, Calif. - Two embryonic stars discovered just a few light years away from the Milky Way's center show that stars can form in the potentially destructive reach of the powerful black hole at our galaxy's center.

Astronomers have long known that young stars could be found near the center of the galaxy, but they had no idea how the stars got there.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Could these stars be a result of the black hole?

Originally posted by peacejet

If black holes created matter by electromagnetic resonance, it actually could not leave the balck hole. Matter has mass, and since gravity attracts mass, it would be attracted even before it escapes out to form the entire galaxy, just as how light cannot escape from the black hole.

These are great questions, and ones that relate to how we traditionally view black holes as only gravitaional events within the vacuum. Nassims Idea is that it also acts as a constant feed back loop between Gravitaional return of matter towards sigularity and resounace of electromagnetics into the vacuum that we experience as matter.

reply to post by atlasastro


But one thing puzzles me, I know that black holes emit gamma rays from the center of the accretion disk, and when there is no matter available for consumption, it disintegrates emitting hawking radiation, but, there is no data, of actual matter being released.

reply to post by atlasastro


I watched this guy for 8 hours solid.. I get what hes saying that atoms are infact black holes ect..

But what he shows is just what i have always knew..

If his scale law is infact correct "and i do think it is" then for me it backs up my own theory of us being in something alive..

Now technicaly that makes no sens or seems very dumb to most as it does not explain all the other goings on "ie black holes"..

But i dont bother with that i use math to infact prove the universe is growning.. why? i dont know why i just know it IS..

Now.. Let me show you abit of evidence that me and nassim share..

Fractals

A fractal is a picture of infinity yes? correct..

This is just a loop or PI never ends..

What is our problem here? it loops! what is a loop?

something that self-replicats.. Now based on his theroy if life does indeed LOOP as shown in fractals..

We are the fractal... Hence the universe is alive and growning..

Its not a giant Human.. some think it is but its not imo.. its something but im not privvy to that.. but im working on a way to prove my findings in a better way..

for now feel free to check out "are we in something alive" one of my first posts on here..

reply to post by peacejet


The black hole gives off radition becouse ITS there... we can only detect it becouse its infact not black

its only black becouse of "no light" But its very very much there... and it does not spit out anything.. it radiates ; )

Matter and energy are not the same thing "well they are but they do different things"

Thats what hawkins theroy means

Originally posted by theresult
reply to post by peacejet

 

The black hole gives off radition becouse ITS there... we can only detect it becouse its infact not black

its only black becouse of "no light" But its very very much there... and it does not spit out anything.. it radiates ; )

Matter and energy are not the same thing "well they are but they do different things"

Thats what hawkins theroy means

I know that they are refered to as black because not even light can escape its gravity, but it is not black at all. All I asked is, that there is evidence of gamma rays coming from the accretion disk but not matter. This is contradictory to this theory.

ok Ill try put it another way

Its Not emiting Matter... its emmiting Energy..

Not the same thing!!

It pumps out ANITMATTER... it sucks in matter

The radiont we dected it the thing that makes up 99.9% of our known universe.

have a nice day

we know its there but we aint got a clue why !! or how it happens sadly

And its only a mathamatical equation ; ) could be wrong but thats how it is for now.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by theresult]

Originally posted by theresult

It pumps out ANITMATTER... it sucks in matter

Sorry, you are wrong again.

Our universe has more matter and little to no anti-matter, and this anomaly led to theorists to conclude a parallel anti-universe to our universe.

reply to post by peacejet


qausality ; )
2nd
3rd


A black Hole Feeeds on matter.. It needs to get rid of it... And thats what we dectect.. It comes out its other end so to speak

We dected black hole farts LOL

reply to post by peacejet


Our universe has more matter..

No... We dont have matter we have energy.. "anit matter" the space inside of an atom

Thats why we have qautom physics..

Its a scale thing.. understand that please//

Incase you dont understand this please google "what is light"

may help..

[edit on 15-1-2009 by theresult]

reply to post by peacejet


So you agree then that black holes infact are emiting energy back across the event horizon. In fact if you look at black holes they also emit light and radio waves as well as x-rays. Look at quasars. Accretion disks also expel massive amounts of electro magnetic radiation. This is very interesting as in Nassim's model he believes the surrounding vacuum acts as a structure that reacts to these events surrounding the black hole and the subsequent release of energy that the black hole draws conserves and transforms. There is also the effects of plasma, torque and spin as well as QED that he considers.
If you read the papers in the OP, aspects and elements of these, as well as equations, are explained in greater detail.

Perhaps I was not clear in pointing out that matter does not instantly appear across the event horizon by his theory, includes other elements that react with this electromagnetic resonance, particulary the vacuum of space which Nassim believes is structured.. Cheers.

Of course I know that matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, through relativity, but,

No... We dont have matter we have energy.. "anit matter" the space inside of an atomNo... We dont have matter we have energy.. "anit matter" the space inside of an atom

This is the most outrageous statement I have ever seen.

Anti-matter isnt the empty space in atoms, it has to do with the change in the rotational direction and also the number of quarks in a specific sub-atomic particle.

reply to post by atlasastro


Ok now I see the point.

The explanation of quasars struck me, quasars are supposed to supermassive black holes in the deep intergalactic space and based on the red shift, they are supposed to be from the early stages of the universe, and who knows, maybe these actually formed the galaxies we are seeing in the present time.