Comments on: Which Comes First: Galaxy or Black Hole?

By: Jeffery Keown

Jeffery Keown — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:06:06 +0000

Haven't very large (up to 1000 solar mass) stars been detected at this distance?

When they formed, they would be very short-lived, as there would have been plenty of matter around to accumulate. When they denotated after a few million years (in spectacular GRBs) they would form the cores of new galaxies.

Therefore, Big Stars ->Big Black Holes -> Galactic Cores.

By: samuek

samuek — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:20:58 +0000

The black hole did exist..my father was was working with the top secret scientists in america,russia,europe and japan my father told me that the scientist are in the half way identyfying.I really Did Believe on him even i his son give me some proofs.id like to explain it to you but it will be hard im sorry maybe next time.

By: SBS

SBS — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:37:35 +0000

Let's take this down a few notches. If black holes are at the center, then why is the Universe expanding? If black holes came in then everything formed around them, then wouldn't everything be sucked into them sense that's what they are known for? Speaking of that, If we have a black hole in the center of our galaxy, and a super massive one at that, wouldn't the best way to verify that be by measuring to see if our galaxy in getting smaller because of it getting sucked into the black hole?

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:43:31 +0000

Replying to drbubo, black holes do not give us enough evidence to suggest that the universe is shrinking, and black holes could easily exist in an expanding universe, it's just that they would be rarer. Also, Red Shift dies not indicate acceleration, as far as I know, it indicates an object moving away.

My question is, how come the black hole is not sucking in the galaxys, and by now, would the black hole have evaporated?

By: OilIsMastery

OilIsMastery — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:32:05 +0000

I'll take a stab at this one. Since black holes do not exist in actual physical material reality I'll go with galaxies.

"…the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality." — Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1939

By: Hiker 9965

Hiker 9965 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:44:27 +0000

If you have seen any of my post, you know that I don't believe in Black Holes.

But if they did exist, how could they possibly preceed galaxies? You would need a a large amount of matter congregating to feed the back hole. I would call that… a galaxy.

By: drbubo

drbubo — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:29:56 +0000

The Universe is shrinking. In an expanding Universe there would not be Black Holes. The red and blue shift do not necessarily indicate expantion, wit the same effort in can be accelerating shrinking too.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:03:14 +0000

What would be the definition of a Galaxy(a region of stars?) If that's the case then the black hole was first.

By: Robbb

Robbb — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:55:59 +0000

Looking back, it sounds like I'm saying same thing as Dark gnat…

By: Robbb

Robbb — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:53:30 +0000

very interesting. A few questions: assuming that the early matter in the universe was much more packed together wouldn't it make some sense for a lot of black holes to form b/c these massive 'bunches' collapse from the collective gravity? (I know I'm not using the right jargon.)

Then, following that notion, the early black holes are eating and spewing lots of matter, helping stars to slowly begin to coalesce around them? The outer ring stars have the best chance to survive and have liveable planets.

Or I way off, speculatively speaking?

By: HeadAroundU

HeadAroundU — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:54:10 +0000

Chicken was first, then her egg. That means galaxy was first, then her blackhole. An egg before chicken wasn't chicken's egg. An blackhole before galaxy wasn't galaxy's blackhole.

By: john webber

john webber — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:41:56 +0000

PERHAPS THE BIGBANG SIMPLY THREW OUT SEED BLACK HOLES. AT THE BOUNDARY OF THESE MATTER AND ANTI-MATTER WAS FORMED AND ANTIMATTER WAS SUCKED INTO AN ENLARGING BLACK HOLE. THE MATTER FORMED THE STARS IN EACH GROWING GALAXY AND THE BLACK HOLE GREW CORRESPONDINGLY.
THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THE NEW STARS ARE AT THE CENTRE OF THE GALAXY.(I SUSPECT ALSO THAT THE OLDEST STARS IN A GALAXY ARE AT THE OUTER EDGE)

By: Dark Gnat

Dark Gnat — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:40:19 +0000

I would imagine that in the early universe, which was denser, could have situations where enough matter could collect, and form directly into a black hole.

Any stars the formed later would be attracted to the black holes.

In fact, I'm betting that it wasn't for black holes, matter would have been spread more evenly, and less stars would have developed.

By: Chris Coles

Chris Coles — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:15:06 +0000

The core difficulty with existing theory is the age of the universe.

Trying to define a theory that postulates the arrival of a massive object, a black hole, and then assuming that a very large mass of stars, formed from what we must assume is new mass "appearing?" from the surrounding intergalactic void, does stretch the imagination.

We need a new theory.

By: s0l

s0l — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:49:39 +0000

If that turns out to be the case i find it very interesting philosophically…The creator born out of the destructor…

I didn't expect the Black Holes to be there first ; could it then be that something other than extreme gravity generates black holes?