If all the stars are orbiting a super-massive black hole at the centre, why are they only orbiting in roughly one plane? Granted that once they have momentum in that plane the centripetal force of gravity should tend to keep them in that plane, but after the big bang what force caused them to form in that shape?

what would happen if a black hole is 'sucked up' by another?

I woke up today thinking of physics, because i had an exam in classical mechanics today. we are taking about collisions.  I thought what if what happens in black holes are inelastic collisions that appear to be singularities because the large mass of the black hole slows time down so much. so the collision take almost infinity time. what do u think?

If I were to go around a black hole in a rocket and look back what would i see?

The conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Does this mean that when matter (containing energy due to e=mc^2) enters a black hole it is spurted out again in a completely different form? But if it leaves the black hole in a different form, would it be possible, theoretically, to say, put back together a book that was sent into the black hole? And if this was possible, would we be able to see what happened to the make-up of the object once it had entered the black hole? 

I recently watched 'How the universe works' on the discovery channel, and when talking about black holes, they said that if you sent a probe towards a black hole, it would appear to observers to slow down and then stop, and you would never see it enter the black hole.

My question is this: if nothing appears to enter a black hole, wouldn't we be able to see all the debry surrounding one, therefore making the hole not black?

If you define an arbitrary plane in free space, then the mass, momentum, and energy of virtual particles crossing the surface will balance (statistically over a given time period). If this plane is parallel to and very close to an event horizon, then an imbalance occurs as some of the virtual particles are lost to the event horizon, making re-combination impossible and thus creating a surplus. The net surplus at the other side of the surface in terms of the mass, momentum and energy of the orphaned particles is then balanced by the mass, momentum and energy of the particles that strayed far enough from the original plane to cross the nearby event horizon. This implies that if an event horizon occurs, it will leak energy (mass and momentum from orphaned virtual particles) into the "real particle" universe.

My problem is that this model leaks from the "vacuum energy", and creates Hawking Radiation in equal, statistically interchangeable, forms on both sides of the gap between the arbitrary plane, and the event horizon. Everything you loose on one side, you have therefore gained, as an orphan, on the other. You get opposite charge, but still the same individual mass and overall momentum. So the total vacuum energy erodes (very slowly) but the black hole expands (also very slowly).

Even if you invoke negative energy particles, they are either repelled by the gravitational field (making things much worse) or at best they cancel the in-falling Hawking Radiation, and produce some very strange external emissions, but no net loss of mass from the black hole. I can’t create a bias, as it implies a bias in free space. Besides, I can’t tell in advance which virtual pairs will become separated, or which individuals orphaned, so there is no biasing mechanism available.

If this was the case then black holes would remain stable. Can someone please explain what is missing from this model? How does it differ from the accepted model of Hawking Radiation and the decay of Black Holes?

I'm told that (for a distant observer) an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole will appear to slow down and will never actually reach it in a finite time. If that is the case a) wouldn't a star appear to freeze as it was collapsing once an event horizon had formed, and b) how could two black holes merge?