|
Thanks for the link Timb.
I highly respect the quality of being pedantic.
For a black hole to exert a gravitational influence even before we apply the inverse square rule it would need a mass to balance the other stars in the galaxy which on current estimate is some 350 billion stars...if we then apply the inverse square rule the black hole would have to be trillions of solar masses...maybe more.
AND so at the risk also of being pedantic I say that this simple observation must remove some of the importance many seek to apply to a black hole.. the significance their gravitational influence I feel is greatly overestimated (in fact not estimated so simple questions such as I raise may be considered) and therefore their role in any influence upon galaxy evolution seems to me be grabbed at without a realisation no matter how massive we believe them to be their mass seems hopelessly inadequate to support current beliefs that they somehow control the galaxy overall...I dont know this is the view of those at the coal face but that is an impression I feel is popular...but it may just be my misinterpretation of various articles that have come before me.
I believe that as a generalisation black holes tend to clean out a region and when this happens they then tend to do little more... they have cleaned out what they can effect gravitationally and their power can not draw in more stars because their gravity can only reach so far to pull in new matter.
Never worry about being pedantic it is better than many other qualities humans put above it.
alex
|