Lets try this again...

First let me say that all of what I say corresponds to theories (like
gravity) that scientists have developed using the scientific method to develop these ideas. While yes there will (I do mean will) be ideas that come along to change things, they will be towards perfecting the ideas we already have. What I mean is that there will always be "gravity", electrons, protons, forces, the "laws" (really theories) of thermodynamics, and it's our ways of looking and modeling them that will change, not the universe. There will always be certain theories that will govern our universe weather we like it or not. Once these ideas that you speak of come along then science will change to form around them. Nothing I have said neither violates anything we know right now, nor is there any sign that they will be false in the future. One more thing: a hypothesis is an idea unsupported by observations and tests but is still built upon the science known. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over and has always passed.

Theoretical scientists predicted Black holes with theories based on a
combination of Newtonian physics and Einstein??s general theory of
Relativity. While they will not describe the inside of a black hole they
can explain their existence and some properties they have while viewing them
from the outside. The "invention" of the black hole was to describe a star's
core when gravity overwhelms the forces supporting it. The first is
electron degeneracy pressure, where the electrons kinetic energy as it spins
around the nucleus, is the only thing that supports the star's core from
collapsing. Because nothing can travel faster then light, there is a point
at which this fails and the star collapses.

Now, we need to talk about Gravity and potential energy. When you throw an object into the air you use energy. If you throw it fast enough the object will be able to escape from our atmosphere and into space (escape velocity). Now the force between the objects goes as Force=GMm/d^2 where G is a constant (non changing) M, m are the masses of the objects and d is the distance. This means that a massive object with a small radius will be harder to escape from then an object of the same mass with a larger radius (it essentially comes down to density.) Now what makes a black hole so black is that nothing, not even light has a fast enough escape velocity to get out of the hole. Hence when something goes in, it doesn??t come out.

Now objects with mass have Gravitational potential energy at any distance from a black hole (or anything else with mass.) As they get closer the object picks up speed by converting this potential into kinetic energy. This is the same sort of phenomenon as a ball rolling down a hill, or a comet/planet with an elliptical orbit around the sun. Around a Black hole gas/dust/planets/stars respond in the same way only as they get closer to the hole they reach a point where they begin to travel at the speed of light. And as they rotate around they collide and rub together. This friction heats the gas to millions of degrees and radiates photons with a huge amount of energy. (This is the original method they used to detect them.)

??we have very little information on black holes...actually we have speculations of it...its true that they appear after a big supernova and all cause we've seen it...(i think we did) anyway for were the things go from there we don??t know but!?

Actually we have very strong (yes theoretical) theories behind black holes and how they form. Observationally yes we are limited in some respects. What appears after a Supernova (or at least what I think your referring to) is probably a white dwarf or a neutron star. They have very distant features observationally that give us good guesses to what they are. To detect a Black hole something needs to fall into it and/or things need to revolve around it in order to measure its mass. Another way would be to detect gravitational waves, but this has been unsuccessful. The only way I know of is when a companion star dump gas onto the black hole and this radiates light. This allows the hole to be ??seen.? The mass is then calculated by measuring the period it takes to revolve around the star (as long as it??s mass is known, this is determined by it??s luminosity mass relation.) There is also a similar way to detect very massive holes at the centers of spiral galaxies by measuring the Doppler shift of objects rotating around the center. Ironically this is also how Dark Matter was hypothesized (then turned into a theory.) Which is thought to consist mostly of Neutrinos, which are particles almost beyond our 5 senses. Trillions could pass though your body and only one might collide. I??m a little fuzzy when it comes to these, though I do know that the main way they interact with normal matter is by the gravitational force.

So you can have your hypothesis:
??could be, except I always figured that black holes were the starting point for new planets... that when the black hole finally "fills up", it begins forming a tiny rock.... that slowly continues collecting mass and becoming a planet....?

But I just wanted to let you know that it violates current theories, and that you might want to use a different term then ??black hole.? What your talking about clashes with the current scientific definition of what they are.