I am not trying to be ATM or anything, I always get these question after I was Supermassive Blackholes. In trying to get a progressive visual of the universe I start with a star the size of our sun. After it is finished it collapses into a white dwarf about the size of the Earth.
In stars with more than 4 times the mass of our sun, become a supernova then collapse into Neutron stars which are drastically smaller, and far more dense then a white dwarf.
Stars more than ten times the mass of our sun become a supernova then collapse into black holes.
Both stars more than 4 times the mass of our sun and stars more than 10 times the mass of our sun produce next generation stars. Wouldn't the logical path to study be that supermassive black holes are the remnants of stars more massive than we can imagine? In the program it discusses the relationship between each galaxy and it's core supermassive black whole. The evidence, as presented in the show, at least, suggests that the Supermassive Blackhole triggered the collapse of gas into stars thus creating the galaxies we know today. Am I correct in remembering assuming that the more massive the star, the older it is? If so, why is it impossible to conclude that galaxies, like stellar nurseries are not the result of some emmense star, that collapsed into a supermassive black hole and leaving plenty more nebula to form it's surrounding stars?
This is where it sounds like I am really trying to be ATM but in all seriousness, I am asking why it is wrong. Assuming that far more intellectual minds have probably explored this idea, I feel safe to say that there are reasons why my idea doesn't fit and I am asking for those reasons. Why is the possibility not mentioned that all the galaxies in the universe are not products of bigger collapses?