All your statements, this and that demonstrate how "off" current astromy is.

You imagine this and that, but in reality "black holes" have never been observed, they are a product of mathematical abstraction, and "black holes" are so etheral that they end up being a rorschach test for your imagination.

You need to get back to what science does best, observation and measurement.

Yet, that would prevent you from day-dreaming about "black holes" because there is no observation and measurement that verifies their reality.

Why were all these "unobserved" objects thought of at all?

Because the gravitational model didn't work without them.

Think of that: These objects would not even been dreamed of if the gravitational model worked without them. But it didn't, so these objects were "theorized" to exist because they just had to because the gravitational has to be correct.

That is a brutally naked assumption.

A theory that has to theorize "unseen" phenomenon to make it work is in trouble.

The center of galaxies is a plasmoid of electrical energy. Electrical currents are the predominate force in the Universe and gravity only has a secondary role, admittedly primary in the absence of charged bodies, but since 99% of the Cosmos is plasma, this limits gravity opportunity to be the predominate force.

The surface of the Earth is a neutral environment — solids, liquids, and neutral gases predominate, but in space plasma — charged particles, both electrons and ions predominate and flow in electric currents, Birkeland currents, that NASA has verfied flow from the Sun to the Earth.

That is why Man's science is slow to recognize plasma dynamics in space, because Man's first venue of scientific inquiry, the surface of the Earth is devoid of plasma.

But in space it is entirely different — space probes are confriming the presence of electric currents and those scientific observations will only mount with time.

There are different parts and stages to black holes, and different things happen in all of them, and at times you are getting them mixed, and the paraphrasing of information you have found….somewhere… isn't exactly making you look good.

There is a lot more to black holes than what you guys are attempting to state here… and there are plenty of good places to educate yourself, just make sure they are reputable.

Kill the word "Postulate" I don't know anybody who uses this word.

Rather, than providing a detailed description based on theoretical, mathematical assumptions, a more fruitful approach might be to consider the possibility that Electric Universe theory has a better explanation:

"Black holes" don't exist so there is no chicken and the egg dilemma and the contradiction this observation imposes on "black hole" theory is therefore moot.

A black hole can be considered to be an object, of sufficiently great mass and small volume, by an observer outside of the black hole, that this object has an event horizon. The event horizon acts as a one way membrane. Due to the strong gravitational field near the black hole, the light cones of the space time get tilted, so much so that their exterior boundary lies tangent to the horizon. The horizon thus acts as a one way membrane, i.e., no object, not even a light ray, that crosses it inwards can ever cross it back outwards. The exterior observer cannot have access to what formed the black hole. The only thing the observer probes is the black hole mass M, electromagnetic charge Q, and
angular momentum J. (Sometimes referred to as a black hole has no hair.) As a result, any physical quantity, such as energy, entropy or information, that is dumped into the black hole remains permanently trapped inside, classically. The only way that an object will cross the event horizon is if it is falling into the black hole, similar to the way an object will fall into a star or the sun if it is not in a suitable orbit.

From the point of view of an observer (or object) outside the black hole we can ignore the physics inside the black hole (which is still a subject of much theoretical research.) and treat it as an object with specific dimensions and mass. For the mass of the Sun the event horizon radius is approximately 3 km. This object will then behave as if it were simply a very dense "star" and objects near it will behave classically. This object cannot "suck". If the sun suddenly were to collapse (extremely improbable) into a black hole, the planets and other bodies would continue merrily on in their respective orbits: they would not be "sucked" into the sun.

Pawel O. Mazur1, and Emil Mottola2 have suggested an alternate endpoint for gravitational collapse in "Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes" (arXiv:gr-qc/0109035 v5 27 Feb 2002)
By extending the concept of Bose-Einstein condensation to gravitational systems, a cold, compact object with an interior de Sitter condensate phase and an exterior Schwarzschild geometry of arbitrary total mass M is constructed. They show that an explicit static solution of Einstein’s eqns. taking quantum considerations into account exists, with the critical surface replaced by a thin shell of ultra-relativistic fluid of soft quanta obeying ? = p. Such a solution, lacking a singularity and an horizon is significant because it provides a stable alternative to black holes as the endpoint of gravitational collapse, possibly with different observational signatures. The assumption required for this solution to exist is that gravity undergoes a vacuum rearrangement phase transition in the vicinity of r = R_S . Where R_S = 2GM is the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to an infinite blue shift of the frequency of an infalling light wave with respect to its frequency far from the object. ( Strictly speaking the Schwarzschild radius is the event horizon in a non-rotating body. A rotating black hole can produce large amounts of energy at the expense of its rotational energy. In that case a rotating black hole gradually reduces to a Schwarzschild black hole.)

There have also been other descriptions of the theoretical physics that may obtain inside of the event horizon. In any case, for an observer far from the object, it can be considered to be simply a "very dense object".

Sorry for not using the correct the term of art. Still, the "black hole" theory postulates a black hole's gravitational pull is strong enough to capture light and all other matter.

The abstract mathematical theory postulating the existence of "black holes" doesn't say they are "super dense" rather it postulates a "point" with infinite or near infinite gravitational pull.

Why is infinite or near infinite required by gravitational theory? Because gravity is a recognized "weak " force.

You simply can't get "there" (gravity being strong enough to capture light) without shooting up the gravitational pull to infinity or near infinity.

So while you can point out my failure to use correct terms of art, I'll point out your description of a "black hole" is a palatable description which is itself a failure to use correct terms of art.

More to the point of my comment is that the observations and theory are in contradiction.

Hikker 9965 is correct when he states that Plasma Cosmology explains this observation better than "black hole" theory.

I thought the EU's ideas were banned by mainstream astronomy. This artist will probably never have another drawing published again. Sad.

The evidence in favor of the EU is clear. Its time to call off the search for black holes. They don't exist.

Too much energy released from the center, and an accretionary disc would not be able to eject material with such energy and, of course, "black holes" supposedly suck in all matter even light.

So, there is a contradiction between the observation (aided by the artist's rendering) and the theory.

Observation and measurement win every time.

This illustration and the raw data supporting it are more consistent with electromagnetic dynamics as opposed to gravitational dynamics.