I know the thread has long comments, but in my first I noted that this model is not applicable to our universe.
I must agree with the comments made by Mr. Larsson.
The Steady State Galaxy Theory by Rufus Young, from 2005 which Mr. dizzo refers to, posits that a "neutroid" lies at the center of every galaxy and shoots beams of matter. ("The Central Core consists of a neutroid at the center and an obscuring mass of material trapped in the Neutroid's magnetic field. The areas from 1 to 2 are gigantic jets of gas which are being ejected by the Neutroid and are contained within its magnetic field. Star formation occurs in these areas. At point 2 the magnetic field of the Neutroid weakens to the extent that it no longer constrains the material within it and as the material continues to move outward it will now trace a spiral arc as per the previous illustrations in Figs. 1 & 2. At point 3 the hydrogen fuel has been consumed and although the remains of the burned out stars are still there they become invisible dark matter as they continue to travel to the top of their projectory and then fall back to the Neutroid.")
First of all, the universe is not experiencing a steady state.
In Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the cosmic expansion in the 1920s, he used entire galaxies as standard candles. But galaxies, coming in many shapes and sizes, are diffi- cult to match against a standard brightness. They can grow fainter with time, or brighter—by merging with other galaxies. In the 1970s, it was suggested that the brightest member of a galaxy cluster might serve as a reliable stan- dard candle. But in the end, all proposed distant galactic candidates were too susceptible to evolutionary change.
As early as 1938, Walter Baade, working closely with Fritz Zwicky, pointed out that supernovae were extremely promising candidates for measuring the cosmic expansion. Their peak brightness seemed to be quite uniform, and they were bright enough to be seen at extremely large dis- tances.1 In fact, a supernova can, for a few weeks, be as bright as an entire galaxy. Over the years, however, as more and more supernovae were measured, it became clear that they were a rather heterogeneous group with a wide range of intrinsic peak brightnesses.
In the early 1980s, a new subclassification of super-novae emerged. Supernovae with no hydrogen features in their spectra had previously all been classified simply as type I. Now this class was subdivided into types Ia and Ib, depending on the presence or absence of a silicon absorbtion feature at 6150 Å in the supernova’s spectrum. With that minor improvement in typology, an amazing consistency among the type Ia supernovae became evident. Their spectra matched feature-by-feature, as did their “light curves”—the plots of waxing and waning brightness is the more striking when their spectra were studied in detail as they brightened and then faded.
First, the outermost parts of the exploding star emit a spectrum that’s the same for all typical type Ia supernovae, indicating the same elemental densities, excitation states, velocities, etc. Then, as the exploding ball of gas expands, the outermost layers thin out and become transparent, letting us see the spectral signatures of conditions further inside. Eventually, if we watch the entire time series of spectra, we get to see indicators that probe almost the entire explosive event. It is impressive that the type Ia supernovae exhibit so much uniformity down to this level of detail. Such a “supernova CAT-scan” can be difficult to interpret. But it’s just weeks following a supernova explosion.
The best fit to the 1998 supernova data implies that, in the present epoch, the vacuum en-
ergy density rL is larger than the energy density attributable to mass (r c2). Therefore, the cosmic expansion is now accelerating. If the universe has no large-scale curvature, as the recent measurements of the cosmic microwave back- ground strongly indicate, we can say quantitatively that about 70% of the total energy density is vacuum energy and 30% is mass. In units of the critical density rc, one usually writes this result as WL rL/rc 0.7and Wm rm/rc 0.3.
Why not a cosmological constant?
The story might stop right here with a happy ending—a complete physics model of the cosmic expansion—were it not for a chorus of complaints from the particle theorists. The standard model of particle physics has no natural place for a vacuum energy density of the modest magni- tude required by the astrophysical data. The simplest es- timates would predict a vacuum energy 10120 times greater. (In supersymmetric models, it’s “only” 1055 times greater.) So enormous a L would have engendered an acceleration so rapid that stars and galaxies could never have formed. Therefore it has long been assumed that there must be some underlying symmetry that precisely cancels the vacuum energy. Now, however, the supernova data appear to require that such a cancellation would have to leave a remainder of about one part in 10
In the cosmic expansion, mass density becomes ever more dilute. Since the end of inflation, it has fallen by very many orders of magnitude. But the vacuum energy density rL, a property of empty space itself, stays constant. It seems a remarkable and implausible coincidence that the mass density, just in the present epoch, is within a factor of 2 of the vacuum energy density.
Given these two fine-tuning coincidences, it seems likely that the standard model is missing some funda- mental physics. Perhaps we need some new kind of accel- erating energy—a “dark energy” that, unlike L, is not con- stant. Borrowing from the example of the putative “inflaton” field that is thought to have triggered inflation, theorists are proposing dynamical scalar-field models and other even more exotic alternatives to a cosmological constant.
By confirming the flat geometry of the cosmos, the recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background have also contributed to the confidence in the accelerating universe results. Without the extra degree of freedom provided by possible spatial curvature, one would have to invoke improbably large systematic error to negate the supernova results. And if we include the low rm estimates based on inventory studies of galaxy clusters, the W –W parameter mL plane shows a reassuring overlap for the three independent kinds of cosmological observations.
On to Super Massive Black Holes
Today, we know that the center of galaxies contain super massive black holes and the Milky Way Galaxy harbors one called Sagittarius A*, or SgA*, not a "neutroid."
Beginning in the 1990s, Andrea Ghez, UCLA, and Reinhard Genzel, UC Berkeley, each led teams that used telescopes to peer at the center of the Milky Way, measuring the orbits of stars that zip around the galaxy’s heart. Those stars move so fast, both teams found, that
only an incredibly compact, massive object such as a giant black hole could explain their trajectories (SN: 10/5/96). That work, which has continued in the decades since, helped solidify the existence of black holes, and helped
confirm the predictions of general relativity (SN: 10/4/12).
The Milky Way’s central black hole, named Sagittarius A*, is a behemoth at 4 million times the mass of the sun. Scientists now think that such a supermassive black hole sits at the center of most large galaxies.
Astronomers have detected stars orbiting Sgr A* at speeds much greater that those of any other stars in the Milky Way. One of these stars, designated S2, was observed spinning around Sgr A* at speeds of over 5,000 km/s when it made its closest approach to the object. Sagittarius A* has a diameter of 44 million kilometres, or a Schwarzchild radius of 22 million kilometers, roughly equalling the distance from Mercury to the Sun (46 million km).
Sgr A* emits a large amount of IR, gamma-rays and X-rays. It appears motionless, but there are clouds of dust and gas orbiting it, which provides a clue to the nature of the object. Astronomers calculated its mass using Kepler’s laws and measuring the period and semi-major axis of the orbit of a star that came within 17 light hours of the object. They arrived at approximately 4 million solar masses. The only kind of object that can be that massive and have a radius of about 100 astronomical units is a black hole. The object was discovered on February 13 and 15, 1974 by astronomers Robert Brown and Bruce Balick at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
Using the highest resolution IR cameras available, astronomers have repeatedly observed the stars orbiting around Sgr A*. They have measured the orbit of a star that comes within 17 light-hours of the object in the core of our Galaxy, which is a distance that is only a few times larger than the orbit of Pluto around the Sun. Using Kepler's laws, if we measure the period and semi-major axis of this star's orbit around Sgr A*, we can calculate the mass of this object. The mass that results from the study of this star and other nearby stars is 4 million solar masses! The only type of object that astronomers believe can have a mass of approximately 4 million stars, but a radius of about 100 AU, is a black hole. Clearly the supernova explosion of one star could never produce a single black hole with a mass so large, so this object must have formed in a different manner. Sgr A* is one example of a class of objects called Super-Massive Black Holes, or SMBHs.
The black hole in the compact galaxy hosting Swift J1644+57 may be twice the mass of the four-million-solar-mass black hole lurking at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy. As a star falls toward a black hole, it is ripped apart by intense tidal forces. The gas is corralled into an accretion disk that swirls around the black hole and becomes rapidly heated to temperatures of millions of degrees.
The innermost gas in the disk spirals toward the black hole, where rapid orbital motion magnifies its magnetic field and creates dual, oppositely directed "funnels" through which some particles may escape. These particle jets driving matter at velocities greater than 90 percent the speed of light form along the black hole's spin axis. In the case of Swift J1644+57, one of these jets happened to point straight at Earth.
"The radio emission occurs when the outgoing jet traveling at relativistic speeds, slams into the interstellar environment", explains Ashley Zauderer, leading author of the radio study. "By contrast, the X-rays arise much closer to the black hole, likely near the base of the jet." There the inflating material is heated to millions of degrees.
Theoretical studies of tidally disrupted stars suggested that they would appear as flares at optical and ultraviolet energies. Thanks to the constructs of relativity, the brightness and energy of a black hole's jet is greatly enhanced when viewed head-on. The phenomenon, called relativistic beaming where particles and photons are accelerated to near light speeds, explains why Swift J1644+57 was seen at X-ray energies and appeared so strikingly luminous.
When first detected with NASA's Swift satellite on March 28, the flares were initially assumed to signal a gamma-ray burst, one of the nearly daily short blasts of high-energy radiation often associated with the death of a massive star and the birth of a black hole in the distant universe. But as the emission continued to brighten and flare, astronomers realized that the most plausible explanation was the tidal disruption of a sun-like star seen as beamed emission.
Two days later, on March 30, EVLA observations by Zauderer's team showed a brightening radio source centered on a faint galaxy, with a recessional velocity of z=1.16, near Swift's position for the X-ray flares. These data provided the first conclusive evidence that the galaxy, the radio source and the Swift event were linked.
The observations show that the radio-emitting region is still expanding at more than half the speed of light. Tracking this expansion backward in time could confirm that the outflow formed at the same time as the Swift X-ray source."
According to relativity, looking "down the barrel" of a particle jet also distorts time, again adhering to relativity, making the jet's evolution appear to unfold many times slower than it actually is. "We expect that within two years the jet should be about 12 light-years across", says Andreas Brunthaler from the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie in Bonn, co-author of the radio paper. "Despite the galaxy's enormous distance of 3.8 billion light-years, this is large enough that the jet will be resolvable using VLBI technique." Very Large Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) combines data from widely separated radio telescopes to emulate one nearly Earth's size. For the observations of Swift 1644+57 the VLBA network in the U.S. and the 100 m Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany are jointly used as a vrtual radio telescope across the Atlantic ocean.
"Incredibly, this source is still producing X-rays and may remain bright enough for Swift to observe into next year," said David Burrows, a professor of astronomy at Penn State University, lead scientist for the mission's X-Ray Telescope (XRT) instrument team. "It behaves unlike anything we've seen before."
The origin of the photon emission is still unclear. There are clearly at least two prominent peaks in the spectral energy distribution: one in the far IR and one in the hard X- ray band. They can be modelled as direct synchrotron emission (single- component model) from radio to X-rays, with strong dust extinction in the optical/UV band. Alternatively, the radio/IR peak is the direct synchrotron emission and the X- ray peak is due to inverse Compton scattering of external photons, most likely disc photons (two-component blazar model). A third possibility is that the X-ray emission is due to inverse Compton emission at the base of the jet, while the radio/IR synchrotron emission comes from the forward shock at the interface between the head of the jet and the interstellar medium.
Two studies appearing in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Nature provide new insights into a cosmic accident that has been streaming X-rays toward Earth since late March. That's when NASA's Swift satellite first alerted astronomers to intense and unusual high-energy flares from a new source in the constellation Draco.
See:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/animations.html
See:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.04659.pdf
See:
http://www.aprim2014.org/download/APRIM_2014_Proceedings_File/107_S4-475.pdf
See:
https://www.space.com/universe-expanding-fast-new-physics.html