Quasars, Black Holes, Rabbit Holes and ‘The Science’. Quasars are a problem for Bangers. So too are Black Holes.

Too much money invested to let observations obviate the Banging dogma. $cientism and the sins of money, power, relevance.

Querying Quasars

Quasars (or Quasi-Stellar Radio Sources) were first observed in the 1950s and identified and explained in 1962 by Maarten Schmidt.  The current official narrative definition (Encyclopaedia Britannica, NASA) has changed over time, mostly to align observations to the Bang theory and twist them to support the general thesis of long ages (based on the Redshifting of light, from galaxies supposedly formed after the Big Bang).

Quasars: quasar, an astronomical object of very high luminosity found in the centres of some galaxies and powered by gas spiralling at high velocity into an extremely large black hole.  (Written by Bradley Peterson, Fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Who doesn’t trust Brad and the Fact Checkers?  Perish the thought.  Behind the quasar it is assumed that a Black Hole exists.  But as NASA admits this is not always the case.  Black Holes do not explain how the quasars are formed, though some theories, based only on models, posit that they can eject material as well as destroy it. Such ideas plainly contradict Bang theology about Black Holes. Nothing comes out of a Black Hole including light. This is what the theory has always maintained. Quasars are a problem for Bangers and amply disprove much of its theology.

Black Holes are hiding

Black Holes however, cannot be observed.  ‘Science’ looks at the interaction of Stars and determines by the ‘light’ how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around a purported Black Hole which attracts and destroys matter.  Scientists can study stars to find out if they are flying around, or orbiting, the Black Hole. 

Maybe all of this is accurate, maybe much of it is not.  No one really knows.  Competing theories and ideas to explain the ‘electromagnetism’ and ‘light’ are rarely pursued.  In any event Black Holes are a theory, though any internet research on ‘are black holes real?’ will return very confident assertions claiming that both Einstein and Hawking were right about Black Holes and their properties, with long articles outlining ‘observations’ confirming their existence.  But much of this is pure theory, and applied modelling analysis.  Other research claims that Black Holes don’t exist. 

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

Heresy from Hawking 

In 2014 Hawking stated that Black Holes don’t exist, and given the reality of quantum mechanics, they can’t exist.  He had spent some 40 years trying to prove their existence and then had to concede defeat to the basic law that matter cannot be destroyed. 

Generally, quantum mechanics does not play well with any other grand theories of general relativity or physics. It is even more complicated when combined in situations where both of the grand theories are relevant. When the quantum mechanics was applied to the theory of black holes, Hawking was able to determine that black holes are not actually black. However, what Hawking did find is that the phenomena will emit radiation in small quantities that would cause them to eventually shrink and evaporate.

The black hole radiation theory also made suggestions that when a black hole finally dies, it will take everything inside of it. However, this theory is disproved by quantum mechanics. According to physics information matter is never destroyed even if it is devoured by a black hole. Some other theories are that the black hole releases this information when it dries up and evaporates. Hawking disagreed with the theorists originally but has now changed his mind by explaining how it just might be possible.

NASA would claim that Hawking provided little math to support his allegation – but since when did that ever stop the Bangers or Hawking from claiming the miraculous?  Hawking’s fame was derived from his ‘law of entropy in Black Holes’, an almost relevant and unobservable thesis, flush with arcane and unprovable maths.  From there he transitioned to supporting Einsteinian relativity, the Bang expansion and multi-verses.  Quantum mechanics does not support Bang theology in general.

Invoke the ‘models’ to explain quasars

The Bang theology using easily manipulated and contrived models, offers that quasars could form naturally where ‘rare streams’ of cold gas meet.  In the Bang model, at the beginning of the universe, these cold streams drove turbulence in gaseous clouds which prevented ‘normal stars’ from forming until the cloud became so massive it collapsed catastrophically under its own weight, forming two gigantic primordial stars (twins around a galaxy).  Behind all of this lies the ‘Black Hole’ – usually there, but not always according to the model.

The above ‘model’ is pure conjecture, unproven and cannot be laboratory tested as a theory.  It lives in controlled computer models.  ‘Rare’ cold streams formed how?  What ‘turbulence’ is needed to prevent a ‘normal star’ from ‘forming’?  Is gravity thus abrogated?  How or why would this cloud of gas ‘catastrophically’ collapse?  How long does it take?  Can they show the process in a lab?  How would this implosion form ‘twins’ constituting the enormous, unbelievable mass and structure of 2 galaxies with all the components of a galaxy?  A galaxy has billions of stars and systems, yet these are formed by ‘catastrophically collapsing gas’? 

How many Gods of the gaps exist here?  How many miracles?

The official narrative outlined above to explain quasars makes little sense and is not what is observed.  Quasars are proven to be young and it is clear they are formed from ejected material from a White Hole, not a Black Hole which cannot be observed anyways.  NASA still maintains that Black Holes are destructive ‘pulling in matter’ and they can be ruled out in galaxy formation.  Based on their own writings, Black Holes are the most destructive entities in the universe and nothing can be emitted from a Black Hole.  Yet even within the Bang church some heretical research challenges this belief and states that Black Holes (or do they mean White Holes?) are creating galaxies or quasars.  In short, as given above by Hawking and other research on Black Holes, ‘The Science’ is confused and it is clear that quasars are a problem for the Bang model. 

Rabbit Holes

Call it what you want – White, Rabbit, Black-Plus Holes – something is creating quasars.  Halton Alp and others have catalogued White Holes, not Black Holes which do not emit material, creating young galaxies.  In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, a White Hole is a ‘hypothetical’ region of spacetime and singularity that cannot be entered from the outside.  Energy-matter, light and information can escape from it in the form of gamma rays and this has been observed (since the 1970s in fact).  But nothing will enter inside.  It is the opposite of a Black Hole.  There are no observations remotely suggesting that Black Holes create White Holes.  How White Holes are created is a mystery.  Bangers postulate that White Holes might be related to the missing ‘Dark Matter’. 

NASA and ‘The Science’ will only report that White Holes are speculative.  But so too are Black Holes.  NASA admits they can’t be observed and are intuited by electro-magnetic energy and light, along with the motions of stars impacted by their ‘enormous gravitational pull’.  They are theoretical constructs supported by tangential evidence.  Quasar formation is however observed with ‘twins’ being formed on the opposite sides of the parent galaxy.  If White Holes exist and if they eject quasars, most of cosmological theory will need a thorough rewrite.

Here is another view on quasars.

The central, low redshift galaxies often show evidence of ejection in the direction of these higher redshift clusters and the clusters often show elongation along these lines. In most of these respects the clusters resemble quasars which have been increasingly shown for the last 34 years to be similarly associated with active parent galaxies. It is argued here that, empirically, the quasars are ejected from active galaxies. (Halton Arp, famed astronomer and Big Bang critic)

Few have ever heard of this second interpretation and definition, because it cancels out much of the Bang theory and one of its key ‘proofs’ namely ‘Redshifting’ (dismantled here).  If the Quasars are young, formed galaxies, this would give credence to the idea of a self-generating universe. 

Arp and other astronomers have presented vast quantities of evidence that large quasar Redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar Redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provided further strong evidence that quasar Redshifts are intrinsic ((2002), Astrophys.J. 566, 705-711). Not only are quasars young, they are quite likely not that far from the Earth, which calls into question Banging long-ages, given that much of that theory is based on Redshifting and Cosmic Background Radiation, dethroned here. If Redshift strength indicates youth, the 14-billion-year universal story is incorrect. 

As well we have the size issue. Some observed quasars refute the Bang theory with the biggest known cluster of quasars called the Huge-Large Quasar Group (Huge-LQG) being too large to be accommodated within the assumptions underlying the Bang theory.  Currently, the accepted cosmological model demands that nothing larger than 1.2 billion light years can exist. This far distant cluster of quasars is nearly 4 billion light years in diameter. 

Bangers cannot explain quasars in the context of formation, youth, distance or size. Other than that Banging is spot on as a ‘science’.

Bottom Line

The Big Banging theology cannot account for White Holes, quasars or even Black Holes and their attributes.  The competing research claims, based on observations and different interpretations of data, make a mockery of the confident expressions from ‘The Science’ about quasars.  They don’t fit the Banging model and they point to ex-nihilo creation and young ages. 

However, the massive industry around Banging will not countenance much in the way of challenges or new paradigms.  As with the fraud of Darwinism, every observation is simply remoulded and reinterpreted to fit the theory – even if it disproves said theory.  Through NASA, cosmology and astronomy is a very tightly controlled narrative, much of it based on ‘models’. 

Next article:  Supernovae (another ‘clock’ invoked by Bangers and another huge problem for the Banging religious)