Did not the Mayans call it the womb?

I disagree with the black hole concept as it doesn't agree with my surroundings. There is this cycle a continuous cycle.
I would prefer to think of it as a factory where things are produced through the consumption of resources.

Maybe it isn't done in the "black hole itself maybe the black hole is a vessel a transport mechanism.

Recycle!

Blast from the past.

Foxdrake... I'm a creationist... (not saying you agree or disagree) and I must say... their is much wisdom in your statement... well said.

Foxdrake, have to admit I love your comment. Best thing I've read on the vine in a long time. But then, that's my 2 cents, so I'll shut up now.

Technically, this has already happened, and we have yet to watch it occur.

@LordFoxdrake, Heres Your 2 cents, Back! Your statement contradicts itself!

None of the snacking can be in REAL TIME. That time has passed. Unless light travels faster than light, how does that work ?

Pretty cool stuff. including the G2 Computer Modeling .

Looking at these things is like watching a gorgeous woman in your neighbourhood. You can speculate all you want about her but you will never end up beside her to observe first hand if she does or is all those things you dream about.

There has been a lot of hype about the behavior of Black
Holes that is all still very theoretical. One such conjecture is that Black
Holes can grow or shrink based on their environmental situations. However there is no real empirical evidence
that Black Holes have grown or shrunken. While there are observations of the
release of energy consistent the annihilation of matter, these observations are
the representative behavior of conditions upon the Event Horizon of the Black
Hole and not the inner works of the Black Hole itself. If fact our best
evidence ever was provided with the observations of the three-telescope
interferometry. The astrophysicists described their findings as a ring of hot
dust that marks the transition from a more-distant mixture of gas and dust in a
toroidal (doughnut-shaped) structure, to a gaseous disk closer to the black
hole. The dusty part, he said, is interesting because it dominates the infrared
emission of active galactic nuclei and can be easily observed. However there
are no measurements relevant to growth such as increased density relative to
its static size or increased size relative to its static density. And the
latest consensus is that there is not a relevant relationship between the
observable size of the accumulated bulge about the Black Hole and the size of
the Black Hole itself.

Rather what has been observed are many Black Holes of
varying sizes and behaviors; and from these collective observations scientists
have conjectured upon the possible evolution of Black Holes upon the principles
following the same pattern of gravitational accretion as normal matter. Problem
is that there is no real empirical evidence that normal matter exists at the
center of a Black Hole. Even stellar growth is more relevant to the behavioral state
of nuclear reactions within the star, relative to its energy versus mass
density.

There also exists variant theories for the existence of
Black Holes; one hypothesis has Black Holes being created from the collapsed
stellar core of larger than three solar masses, while another has black holes
predating stars and forming upon the instance of the Big Bang. In fact, the
concept of a star growing or shrinking has little to do with gravitational
accretion. So if a Black Hole is just a converted state of stellar evolution, then
why should we expect that the Black Hole size should be dependent on the amount
of material being attracted and annihilated upon its Event Horizon? And
considering the Black Hole radiation jets act as the safety valve for the
reactions within a Black Hole, one might speculate that, like a star, the size
of the Black Hole has more to do with its internal reactions and less to do
with the matter being converted upon its Event Horizon.

An alternative theory present the hypothesis
that dark matter and dark energy were the original conditions of the universal
persistence and that gravitational attraction may be alternately viewed as dark
energy repulsion. Such an alternative perspective might support the notion that
that SpaceTime provides for greater dark energy upon greater void displacement;
i.e. the intrusion of positive mass density tends to fill the void, and the
surrounding dark matter per volume compensates by increasing its negative
density (or increasing the negative density of dark matter). Consequently the
greatest force of dark energy repulsion is presented upon the greatest negative
density of dark matter. With this alternative perspective, a Black Hole is the
result of a high negative density for its involved dark matter rather than a
high positive density for it involved baryonic matter.