"SCIENTISTS HAVE DISCOVERED A MONSTER BLACK HOLE THAT SHOULDN'T EXIST". Why would they say "shouldn't" since it does?

Heavy! 

Apologies Shuhak but you lost me. I can't follow you there. Clearly their theories are incorrect right? Theyneed to adjust their theories to fit reality not the other way around. What am I missing is making this hard for me to grasp? Hate shouldn't exist ideally but it does. I know black holes and hate are not analogous but I'm stretching here. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)

Technically, all theories are "incorrect" (supposition, conjecture) until proven to be fact.  Therefore they are in constant need of "readjusting".  The theory that the world was flat had to be "adjusted" when it was found to be round. Due to observations from satellites and humans offworld, we know for a fact that the earth is round (ish).

Just because something doesn't seem possible doesn't conclude that it is impossible.

We are looking out at a vast universe from an teeny tiny, itty bitty speck of dust inside that universe.  To say we know all that has happened, will happen, or even exists out there is rather presumptuous.  We didn't even know black holes existed until 1919 (?).  Even as late as the 1970's we thought they were rare.  NOw we believe that there's a black hole at the center of every galaxy - as well as other places.  We even have a photo of one!  The math says that they can be as small as a grain of sand (like we're ever going to see those).  What we see when looking out from this itty bitty ball of dust seems to indicate that there are black holes millions of times larger than our sun.  (mind blowing)


 

Actually, hate and black holes are a good analogy.  A star gives off light and warmth.  However, when it implodes on itself (shrinks inward) it blows off what it had and becomes a black hole (overly simplified).  People who hate turn their focus inward.  Any "good" they once did is "blown off" (they don't care about it).  All that matters now is themselves (me, myself and I).  At that point they no longer give off "light and warmth), only darkness.  The more time they spend focusing on themselves, the darker they become (the bigger the hate?).  They began to devour all that's around them, in an effort to fill the emptiness inside of them that they refuse to see.

Chandra means "moon" in Sankskrit.  

Chandrasekhar was an astronomer who calculated the maximum mass of a stable white dwarf star. If one exceeds that limit, it could collapse into a black hole.

All I'm tryin to say is....

Chandra (Sanskrit: चन्द्र, IAST: Candra, lit. "shining" or "moon")^[2][a] is a lunar deity and is also one of the nine planets (Navagraha) in Hinduism. Chandra is synonymous to as Soma. Other names include Indu (bright drop), Atrisuta (son of Atri), Sachin (marked by hare), Tārādhipa (lord of stars) and Nishakara (the night maker).^[3]

Chandra is described as young and beautiful, two-armed and carrying a club and a lotus.^[4] In Hindu mythology, Chandra is the father of Budha (planet Mercury).

Chandra, who is also known as Soma and Indu, is the basis of Somvaar, which is Hindi, and Induvaasaram, which is Sanskrit, for Monday in the Hindu calendar.

Up there out there somewhere. I don't know where it exists on a map of the skies. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday.

Hi Kg. It seems to me that when you discover something exists your theories didn't cover you need to adjust your theory to fit reality..no? When I read "theoretically shouldn't exist" I figger the theory is wrong and needs tweaking. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)