The universe doesn't have a center (at least its impossible to prove) but a light ''beam'' of 13 billion years was received by the Hubble, i came from a quasar and i was calculated that the black hole hiding there should be at least 100.000 light years long(like the milky way). So, some people think that it is pretty near of the ''big bang'' site because that light was like the same age of the universe, even if the ''big bang'' its a theory.
There is a history to the "afters" of a Big Bang even if they were in the few seconds---or even the micronanoseconds. All applies and is important. Our divisions are sacrosanct. When you put a spot on an electron, and it takes two spins to come back to it's staring point, Houston, we have a problem.
Physicists drive to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But the answer is the Black Hole. Y'all super close.
White holes are hypothetical regions of spacetime that are the reverse of black holes, where matter and light emerge instead of being sucked in. While there is no direct observational evidence for white holes, they are theoretically possible based on the mathematics of general relativity. However, they remain speculative and have not been observed in the universe.
That is a really good question, but no one actually knows. Though we do know that one day that Black holes will die because it will become smaller and smaller and then ping, it died. However the black holes that were create from the beginning of the Universe are still exist, so it will takes billions and billions and billions and billions of years from black hole to die.
The existence of primordial black holes could challenge current theories about the formation and evolution of the universe. They could provide insights into dark matter, the early universe, and the nature of gravity. Further research is needed to fully understand their implications.
Gravity is strongest in regions of space with higher mass concentrations, such as near black holes or neutron stars. Black holes have the most intense gravitational pull, creating a powerful force that can even bend light.
Some do, some become "bright giants" instead.
The scientific consensus does not support Stephen Hawking's assertion that black holes do not exist. Black holes are widely accepted in the scientific community based on observational evidence and theoretical predictions.
There is a lot of evidence that they do, indeed, exist.
Yes.
White holes are theoretical regions of spacetime that expel matter and energy outward, the opposite of black holes which pull matter in. They do not suck up objects like black holes do. However, there is no observational evidence for the existence of white holes in the universe.
Whoever said this seems to think that there is not enough direct evidence for black holes. However, I understand there is enough evidence to believe that black holes actually exist - including the observation of many, many objects that can only be black holes.
An intermediate-mass black hole is one that has a mass somewhere between 100 and a million solar masses, i.e., larger than the stellar black holes, but smaller than the supermassive black holes. It seems likely that such holes should exist, but the observational evidence is not yet very firm.An intermediate black hole is one whose mass is somewhere between that of a stellar black hole (a few times the mass of the Sun), and that of a supermassive, or galactic, black hole (millions or billions of times the mass of the Sun).
I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.I am not sure it is a problem. The evidence for black holes is quite strong.
White holes are theoretical objects that are the opposite of black holes. They are believed to be created as a result of the mathematical equations that describe black holes, but there is no observational evidence of their existence. In theory, white holes would expel matter and energy outward, in contrast to black holes which pull matter and energy inward. Their role in the universe, if they exist, is not well understood, but some scientists speculate that they could potentially be connected to the creation of new universes or play a role in the recycling of matter and energy.
The evidence on black holes is actually quite convincing; I suggest you read the Wikipedia article for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
White holes are theoretical objects that are the opposite of black holes, expelling matter instead of absorbing it. They are not considered to be dangerous like black holes, as they do not have the same gravitational pull or ability to trap objects with their intense gravitational force. White holes are not thought to exist in our universe.
The effect of the existence of black holes is supported by observational evidence. There have as yet been no observations that would support the existence of the other items on this list.
There is enough evidence for black holes - I don't see any problem there.