Black holes would grow until all floating matter surrounding them was absorbed and then, if not sooner, they migrate toward each other gaining speed. When they eventually collide, they create more galaxies in a different location. Of course, they don’t all have the same timing, so some are still growing when others impact them.
The free radiation that they emit doesn’t make up for all of the matter they absorb (obviously, else they wouldn’t grow).
No. It is causing it to appear that way because light bends while going through uneven “dark matter” as well as gaining more red shift. You can’t tell how far things are apart merely by looking at them, nor simply by measuring from year to year.
Specifically, the galaxies cause a depletion of the matter between each other. And that causes a thinning of the energy/matter in those regions. The effect of that is that they appear to be further apart as the light is less and less affected. But eventually, they gain no more mass and merely drift toward each other. Actually they were always slightly drifting toward each other as they were absorbing matter.
And that is why you see some black holes spinning around each other and some merely drifting through space.
My apologies James. Lil’ syrup here is getting dangerously close to another incident of bobgun. And we don’t want another incident of that do we sweetie. Pets, and Sits you in a corner with a cute and little dunce cap.
Note that I offered to prove it “even to you”
… THAT is not “worship”.
But you prefer to merely let authority figures do your thinking for you (aka “worship”) … fine.
??
You aren’t referring to your bug-zapper thread, are you? Although I am sure that you couldn’t follow that debate, he only left because I shot down everything he said.
Assuming that the same methodology is being employed I fail to see what is the difference
I am not going to accept anything as true if I do not understand it even if it is actually true
Take it to people who know what they are talking about because I do not know any of this
In short: You are never going to actually understand anything, but rather merely meme whatever “they” say.
… fine. That hardly sets you apart from the majority non-thinkers.
Understanding does not only come from them but can come from anyone. So there is no conspiracy to
only listen to what they say. And I am actually more interested in diversity of opinion than in adopting
a dogmatic position. And I also have no problem at all in accepting that anything I know could be wrong
I came here to express my admiration for HaHaHa’s undisputed level of arrogant stupidity wrapped up in scientific jargon.
His argument being “because everything is transient nothing is worth preserving”.
And noone is mocking him the way he deserves to be mocked. Instead, people are treating him seriously.
Here is a question for the moron who started this thread: if everything ia transient, which implies that this forum and everything we post on it is transient too, then why are you posting on it?
If we are all going to die, then why do you bother living at all?
Motion is an end in itself. It requires no justification. There is no state it has to lead to in order to be justified.
We build things that we want to last even though we know they won’t last forever.
This is because value rests in action (process) not in goal-realization (state.)
Not to mention that he describes himself as “chaos worshipper” yet he is one of the most stubborn people around here. Stubbornness is a sign that he is a fanatic who is clinging onto certain instincts unwilling to shape them when it becomes necessary to do so. The opposite of chaos worshipping.
Scientists don’t know for what’s going to happen, weather man can’t always predict terrestrial weather tomorrow, nevermind celestial weather billions of years from today.
If Scientists are wrong, you’ll have wasted your life, and if they’re right, it doesn’t matter, so you have nothing to lose, and potentially everything to gain by making the most of your life, whatever that means to you.