Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

afrothunder1987 t1_je71qja wrote

Well this is all theory but possibly! Could be that two galaxies with overly large black holes merged and the black holes combined. Or maybe the star that force fed this particular black hole was just way larger than normal.

2

endlessupending t1_je72t2e wrote

Something tells me primordial mergers if a real thing were more common than supermassive mergers based on the relatively smaller size of the early universe. I have no data to back that up though.

1

iborobotosis23 t1_je7c6zm wrote

Please stop saying theory. I don't think you're using it the way it should be in a scientific context.

−9

honeybadger9 t1_je7kh2e wrote

Should stop gate keeping science. A theory is an idea based on a general understanding of something. If this and this happens at this scale, then it's possible for this to happen at a larger or smaller scale.

A theory is just an idea that could be possible but hasn't been proven yet.

5

iborobotosis23 t1_je7lqj8 wrote

You know what? You're right. I just read up the definition here (link). I think it states that theories a bit more defined than what you're saying but I was probably conflating theory and empirical law.

5

DarkStarStorm t1_je7dmme wrote

Give them a replacement word, then.

2

iborobotosis23 t1_je7kwk7 wrote

I'll give you a few (link).

"But", you'll say, "I see the word theory right there!" You're quite right it is in there. But that is not the context in which the word should be used when discussing scientific topics. When using theory in a scientific discussion it's meant to convey the most certain scientists can be on a statement. This is not true based of a little more reading on theories and laws. Oopsie, my bad!

0