I put the proposition recently that a black hole in my view could not influence a galaxy given its relative size to the galaxy.
I searched to find information to provide some specific details of maximum size attainable by a black hole.
The best I could find (so far) is there is an upper limit on the size of a black hole of approx 100 million solar masses.
Here is the link...
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_...ss_021505.html
Given that our galaxy for example may have 300 billion “Suns” I suggest that a black hole could not play a significant role in holding a galaxy together…(I guess others must think similar if they seek dark energy to help out).
For our galaxy we need our black hole therefore to be some 30 times larger than the current upper limit to have a chance of a “gravity” balance … and of course when the inverse square rule is taken into account to determine the gravitational effect we would find that a black hole of even greater size (many fold thirty times as large) would be required for the “balance” required for a significant gravitational effect on the rest of the galaxy.
I also discovered that far less matter is “shot” into space from a black hole than the theory and prior expectations would suggest.
I still have to find all the matters called upon to determine the presence of a black hole however it appears they are found by “activity” associated with “active” galaxies.
I find plenty of artists impressions but not photo of an actual “black hole” but then given their properties of not letting even light escape that is perhaps reasonable.
Another interesting matter was someone is said to have found a black hole in a globular cluster. I have for a long time considered that globular are in fact the core of captured galaxies… given the orbit of globular which suggest capture and the possibility of a black hole being found in a globular cluster I feel there is some merit in the possibility that globular clusters are galaxy remnants stripped of the outer matter to leave the central core.
Why are black holes no larger than 100 million solar masses.. It seems they have run out of food!
Again I say that if they have such a large gravitational effect as many seem to think it would seem that if they were running out of food they could simply pull more in.. Well if they don’t it makes me wonder again how significant they really are.. as to gravitational input to the galaxy.
And although I see story after story of black hole observation I do not feel anything to date offers conclusive evidence of anything more than a determination that black holes will be found and so they are.
Given black holes are born out of theory and the general determination that they are a fact I question “could they be observing something else but consideration of an alternative explanation is sidelined because the expectation takes the theory as fact before evidence can be assessed and alternatives offered.
Also given the fact that a black hole represents a singularity … time and gravity become infinite.. how can any determination be placed upon their size… the message of gravity if it could escape would not withstanding the inverse square rule still must be infinite one would think… nothing therefore would be to far away to escape the influence of black hole.
I must have something wrong when it comes to my understanding of general relativity and the “black hole” it tells us about.
I know you all think I am mad to think such a thing but I do not see the proposition as unreasonable… that an alternative may well exist which will never be considered because the expectations of the theory of general relativity have colored any data that may be gathered.
And if black holes for all practical purposes reach an upper limit and from that point they consume no more after that point what does this tell us about the prospect of them being a singularity…
Alex