Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  It's noticeable too that the rotation is more concentrated in the center towards the bottom, and slows least as the vortex rises. Yet, laws and effects should be universal and because electron and galactic vortices are inverted compared to water or air, it implies to me that Einstein's conclusion that space warps was incorrect, otherwise the vortices of galactic jets and electron clouds would be the same as tornados, hurricanes, whirlpools, etc.. In short, I think the effects function in a more euclidian fashion. |
The original rotation must slow to a certain level before any of the slivers can fall. If there is a fast rotation, nothing can fall to the bottom; it is all swept up in the motion. So, there has to be a balance or at least a threshold of slowed down motion before accumulation of matter can take place. The story of spin and lack of spin is therefore not complete without mentioning a required slowing down of that spin because the special condition for accumulation needs to become possible as part two of the story. The only aspect that does not exists externally in our universe is the bucket used in the experiment, so the properties displaying the bucket need to be carried intrinsically by the slivers themselves (as a collective property). My solution around this problem is a universal situation with slivers moving randomly individually (up-down, left-right, front-back), but not randomly in a collective way (only/mainly outwardly) until accumulation took place in locations of slowed down spin. Spin should therefore be considered a local collective property (even the mightiest star is still moving rapidly through our universe; it is only the apparent slowing down within the local spin that allowed for its accumulation). This way, no bucket is required.
Recreation requires a bucket, but
creation itself does not require a bucket.
You took the words right out of my mouth: the vortices of galactic jets and electron clouds are the same (though on a different scale) as tornados, hurricanes, whirlpools, etc.. (but also without a large gravitational entity such as earth nearby). I do not believe black holes are centers of gravity, rather they are the holes that exists in the galactic disk of gravitational forces. Just like a hurricane having a hole with not much happening there, the gravitational disks of galaxies have a hole (see my unintended joke of black holes really being gray holes really being ash-holes). It would probably go too far to state that there is zero gravity in these locations, yet I would not expect more than the usual amount (whatever that is) of gravity (or two or three times that much); I do not believe the extraordinary gravity currently proposed exists in black holes. Solar systems have a gravitational center in their star (or double star), galaxies do not, they are not 'singular' but collective in their gravitational accumulation. The spin is enforced/kept in place (though not always completely in a perfect way, just look at pictures of galaxy arms) by the galactic matter itself.
As you notice, a black hole as a low-gravitational spot within an otherwise fully on gravity based galaxy does not require any additional scientific information; it is just a different perspective based on the same scientific knowledge we have today. All calculations and all information would still apply to spin and size. It would, however, change the calculations humans make on the amount of gravity currently required in the overall universal set-up. And it would eliminate the bizarre phenomenon of singularity at the center of galaxies.