Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #680244 > unrolled thread

Many smaller BHs

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Many smaller BHs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 15:39 -0700
    Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 15:50 -0700
      Re: Many smaller BHs Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 16:44 -0700
        Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 16:51 -0700
          Re: Many smaller BHs pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 19:42 -0700
            Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 20:18 -0700
              Re: Many smaller BHs pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 20:52 -0700
                Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 11:44 -0700
    Re: Many smaller BHs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 16:05 +0000
      Re: Many smaller BHs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 09:13 -0700
        Re: Many smaller BHs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-08 17:42 +0000
        Re: Many smaller BHs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:36 +0000
          Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 13:45 -0700
            Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 15:03 -0700
              Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 15:18 -0700
                Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 16:22 -0700
                  Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 16:28 -0700
                    Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 16:37 -0700
        Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 13:56 -0700
      Re: Many smaller BHs Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 12:51 -0700
    Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:40 -0700
      Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:44 -0700
      Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 12:46 -0700
        Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:55 -0700
          Re: Many smaller BHs mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-08 13:32 -0700
            Re: Many smaller BHs "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-08 16:28 -0700
    Re: Many smaller BHs Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-08 15:54 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#680244 — Many smaller BHs

They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#680245

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane

How do we find a black hole?
if we can't see it?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680251

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> 
> How do we find a black hole?
> if we can't see it?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680254

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > 
> > How do we find a black hole?
> > if we can't see it?
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.

We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
we determine gravity strength by redshifts.

You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
particle paths in time... not to be believed...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680270

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > 
> > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > if we can't see it?
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> 
> We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> 
> You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> particle paths in time... not to be believed...

Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.

Looky here...

https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9

... all you could ever want to know about star S2...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680272

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > > 
> > > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > > if we can't see it?
> > > > 
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > 
> > > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> > 
> > We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> > They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> > we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> > 
> > You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> > That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> > particle paths in time... not to be believed...
> 
> Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.
> 
> Looky here...

But does he know what you mean pnal?

> 
> https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9
> 
> ... all you could ever want to know about star S2...

If we can't see a black hole... there is an alternative there
creating the orbit. Light constant speed does not respond to gravity
so light has never been trapped by any gravity.

Black holes have been ruled out entirely if any at all light
can leave so it has all been stupid because all light bubbles could...
Light's parabolic motion curve in gravity doesn't trap it.
And the curve itself is limited.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680281

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > > > 
> > > > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > > > if we can't see it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > 
> > > > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> > > 
> > > We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> > > They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> > > we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> > > 
> > > You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> > > That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> > > particle paths in time... not to be believed...
> > 
> > Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.
> > 
> > Looky here...
> 
> But does he know what you mean pnal?

Of course he does, as does anyone with 2 functioning braian cells...
> 
> > 
> > https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9
> > 
> > ... all you could ever want to know about star S2...
> 
> If we can't see a black hole... there is an alternative there
> creating the orbit. Light constant speed does not respond to gravity
> so light has never been trapped by any gravity.
> 
> Black holes have been ruled out entirely if any at all light
> can leave so it has all been stupid because all light bubbles could...
> Light's parabolic motion curve in gravity doesn't trap it.
> And the curve itself is limited.

Gobbledegook, all of it, meaningless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680346

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:52:18 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > > > > if we can't see it?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > 
> > > > > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> > > > 
> > > > We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> > > > They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> > > > we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> > > > 
> > > > You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> > > > That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> > > > particle paths in time... not to be believed...
> > > 
> > > Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.
> > > 
> > > Looky here...
> > 
> > But does he know what you mean pnal?
> 
> Of course he does, as does anyone with 2 functioning braian cells...

Why are you insulting him at the same time?

> > 
> > > 
> > > https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9
> > > 
> > > ... all you could ever want to know about star S2...
> > 
> > If we can't see a black hole... there is an alternative there
> > creating the orbit. Light constant speed does not respond to gravity
> > so light has never been trapped by any gravity.
> > 
> > Black holes have been ruled out entirely if any at all light
> > can leave so it has all been stupid because all light bubbles could...
> > Light's parabolic motion curve in gravity doesn't trap it.
> > And the curve itself is limited.
> 
> Gobbledegook, all of it, meaningless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680324

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around 
>a hurricane 

Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680325

MM
"Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the 
BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
But they splashed?
Or the BH is full?
Why didn't they fall in and disappear?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680339

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the 
>BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>But they splashed?
>Or the BH is full?
>Why didn't they fall in and disappear?

Because the smaller black holes are in a stable orbit around the galactic
black hole? Or at least a long term stable orbit?  (Look at star S2 again.  
Some day it will go supernova and form a black hole or neutron star)

Nobody ever mentioned anything about any "splashing" (whatever that is) or
a BH somehow getting "full" (impossible, since they get as large as there
is matter that has fallin in)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680361

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the 
> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> But they splashed?
> Or the BH is full?
> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> 

Because they are still orbiting. 
Same reason all the planets have not fallen into the sun. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680362

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> > MM
> > "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the 
> > BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> > But they splashed?
> > Or the BH is full?
> > Why didn't they fall in and disappear?

That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
on the other side.

It means Hawkings black holes wouldn't be around. They drained
at formation.

Mitchell Raemsch

> > 
> 
> Because they are still orbiting. 

> Same reason all the planets have not fallen into the sun. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680369

On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> MM
>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>>> But they splashed?
>>> Or the BH is full?
>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> 
> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
> on the other side.

Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually 
prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.

> 
> It means Hawkings black holes wouldn't be around. They drained
> at formation.
[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680370

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> MM
> >>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> >>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> >>> But they splashed?
> >>> Or the BH is full?
> >>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> > 
> > That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
> > on the other side.
> 
> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually 
> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.

Do accretion discs become jets?
How can matter be ejected from a black hole
that came from an accretion disc when the
two are at an angle?

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> > 
> > It means Hawkings black holes wouldn't be around. They drained
> > at formation.
> [...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680374

On 4/8/2018 3:18 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> MM
>>>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>>>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>>>>> But they splashed?
>>>>> Or the BH is full?
>>>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>>>
>>> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
>>> on the other side.
>>
>> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
>> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.
> 
> Do accretion discs become jets?

The jets from, say a quasar, seem to be created from a hard core feeding 
frenzy. The material from the the jets do not seem to be emanating from 
"inside" the black hole.


> How can matter be ejected from a black hole
> that came from an accretion disc when the
> two are at an angle?

Some matter falls in, some does not.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680375

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 4:23:01 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/8/2018 3:18 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> MM
> >>>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> >>>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> >>>>> But they splashed?
> >>>>> Or the BH is full?
> >>>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> >>>
> >>> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
> >>> on the other side.
> >>
> >> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
> >> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.
> > 
> > Do accretion discs become jets?
> 
> The jets from, say a quasar, seem to be created from a hard core feeding 
> frenzy. The material from the the jets do not seem to be emanating from 
> "inside" the black hole.

The matter floats out at 90 degrees to the jets.
Matter slows down in gravity. Light leaves
gravity at its constant speed.
How can matter defy maximum gravity if it
always slows down at the maximum?

> 
> 
> > How can matter be ejected from a black hole
> > that came from an accretion disc when the
> > two are at an angle?
> 
> Some matter falls in, some does not.

What determines a stable orbit?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680377

On 4/8/2018 4:28 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 4:23:01 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 3:18 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> MM
>>>>>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>>>>>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>>>>>>> But they splashed?
>>>>>>> Or the BH is full?
>>>>>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
>>>>> on the other side.
>>>>
>>>> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
>>>> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.
>>>
>>> Do accretion discs become jets?
>>
>> The jets from, say a quasar, seem to be created from a hard core feeding
>> frenzy. The material from the the jets do not seem to be emanating from
>> "inside" the black hole.
> 
> The matter floats out at 90 degrees to the jets.
> Matter slows down in gravity. Light leaves
> gravity at its constant speed.
> How can matter defy maximum gravity if it
> always slows down at the maximum?

Are you trying to suggest that it slows down to the point where it is 
sort of "locked" in space time? This reminds me of an observer never 
being able to actually witness an object fully crossing an event horizon...


>>> How can matter be ejected from a black hole
>>> that came from an accretion disc when the
>>> two are at an angle?
>>
>> Some matter falls in, some does not.
> 
> What determines a stable orbit?

Sometimes, an object can find its way into a "sweet spot", or island of 
stability so to speak wrt its orbit and gravitational community? A 
satellite orbiting around a large source of gravity, say, the Earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680364

On 4/8/2018 9:13 AM, john wrote:
> MM
> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> But they splashed?
> Or the BH is full?

Afaict, a black hole can never be "full".

> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> 

They are still locked into an orbit sufficient enough to prevent them 
from falling in?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680355

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 6:05:50 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefmail.com> writes:
> 
> >They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around 
> >a hurricane 
> 
> Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time.

Maybe the center of the galaxy has been shrinking, relative to the 
expansion at the fringes of the observable universe. Miniature clusters
and black holes can stay there forever, hidden in their small spaces.
A law of viscosity needs to be written that applies to the galactic 
size limit and the stretching of space time during pre-history, 
stretching outwards and inwards with gravity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web