Can someone satisfy my curiosity... Black holes are considered to be things that sit and gobble up anything that comes close, just getting bigger and bigger. What if this view is the wrong way round? In a different scenario, the big bang could have produced nothing but black hole matter. As this black matter moved away from the start point it could have started spinning, with the centrifugal force detaching pieces of black matter from the parent. Some of these pieces that were detached from the spinning object would have been non viable (ie not massive enough to remain as black matter). They would have turned into stars. If the black matter was non-viable it might be expected to expand rapidly. This rapid expansion could have "lit" the stars. Others pieces would have remained as black matter, remaining as black holes or until they were caused to spin. This explains the catherine wheel look to a number of galaxies. It is not hard to imagine a black hole spinning with a slew of stars being thrown off. As the critical spin would be achieved at different times this provides an explanation as to why galaxies are not all the same age. Is this sense or nonsense, orthodox view or what?