Hi gib niner, Quote: i do recall seeing a BBC documentary a few months ago that delineated recent scientifically proven theories that actually at the centre of each and every galaxy lies a black hole and that the size of this black itself would be proportional to the size of each respective galaxy in turn.
I know what you mean. Here's a quote from the BBC Website about these so-called supermassive black holes: Quote: Using the powerful Hubble Space Telescope, scientists have been scanning nearby galaxies, searching for these giant black holes. It's a difficult job - by their very nature black holes swallow light - so can never be seen. So what scientists have been looking for is the effect of their massive gravity, hurling stars around them at immense speed.
Now this is what I call reverse logic. The very observation that necessitated the theory of these supermassive black holes is that something is "hurling stars" around at immense speed at the center of most galaxies. Since the current dogma holds that gravity is basically the sole force acting upon stars, planets and galaxies in the universe, and since it is (incorrectly) believed that gravity is a strictly property of mass, like color or hardness, and directly proportional to that mass, then the only explanation that is acceptable in the current view is that there must be something there that is "supermassive". Since the size of a galactic center's active area is rather small, and since the mass "required" by the theories to cause these stars to be hurled around is calculated at "billions of suns", these theories have to cram lots of mass into a small space. So much mass, it turns out, that the escape velocity from this mass would be higher than 286,000 miles per second, a.k.a. the speed of light. This is where we get the "black" part. Of course, this mass of millions or billions of suns existing in a small space or point (the "singularity") cannot be comprehended by us mere mortals. This is where the laws of physics "break down" and where we get the "hole" part. That being said, in no way do observations of stars hurling around the center of our galaxy prove anything whatsoever about the existence of black holes... that's the thing they have to find an answer for, and is not proof of their answer! Quote: I'm confused myself - is there black holes or is there not black holes?
Well, if you believe that only gravity controls the universe, which is the currently accepted view, then black holes have to exist or your theory collapses. However, if you believe that electromagnetism (which is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity) might somehow have escaped the attention of pre-electricity gaslight-era physicists like Newton, who originated the immutable "laws" that modern science rests upon, and if you believe that electromagnetism might actually play a role in our universe, then black holes don't have to exist anywhere outside currently outdated theoretical physics models and researcher's computer simulations. Another point, mentioned in an article I linked to in a previous post (about the plasma focus device type of item that really powers the galaxy and its stars), is that a "ring of stars" could not possibly form so close to a black hole. Tidal forces from such a strong gravitational source should tear any forming star apart. And these days black holes are said to spew out jets of matter at near light speed, which seems to go against their very nature, but that is yet another observation they had to explain away somehow to keep their model afloat. If you want more information, here's another LINK to an article about the ridiculous nature of reporting on black holes in the media, and explaining what is really lurking in the center of most galaxies in more detail than I can do here. Peace.
__________________
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
- René Descartes | 
