I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 18
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Why a black hole in a strong rotation sucks in and a simple centrifuge scatters?
A black hole is not sucked in by strong rotation. On the contrary, the sucked masses are strongly rotating due to suction. Which, by the way, leads to a delay of falling into the hole, maybe even for a long time - until the hole, due to continuation of gaining mass, compresses the orbits of nearby "satellites" to the "gravitational horizon". What happens to them thereafter can only be guessed...
That is if we reason in terms/formulas of "mainstream" models.
// Things are far from simple with "causality" in the universe. But it is not an empty concept, i.e. it is not an "explanatory fiction".
Why does a black hole get sucked in when spinning hard, but a simple centrifuge scatters?
Don't piss! It won't get sucked in.
Observe the funnel that forms when the bathtub is emptied and how the fly that gets caught in it dies. So the same fate awaits us.
Only those with a name beginning with 'U'. I know for a fact, I have all the horoscopes in my possession.
A black hole is not sucked in by strong rotation. On the contrary, the sucked in masses are strongly rotating because of the sucking in.
Things are far from simple with "causality" in the universe. But it is not an empty concept, i.e. it is not an "explanatory fiction".
And if you look at pictures of galaxies, it looks more like matter scattering from centres.
The matter has not had time to fly away from the centre and there is more than enough space for scattering.
Stars are removed compactly as they move away. And there are none at a certain distance, which is not quite logical for suction.
And if you look at pictures of galaxies, it looks more like matter scattering away from centres.
Matter has not travelled far from the centre and there is more than enough space for scattering.
Stars are compactly removed as they move away. And there are none at a certain distance, which is not quite logical for suction.
If there was no black hole, there would be no Milky Way. And all the stars would be more evenly distributed across the sky.
If it's all sucked up everywhere, how am I supposed to believe in expansion?
Make up your mind at the end of the day.
Misunderstanding #1. Scientists say the universe is expanding, galaxies are scattering in different directions. What about the stars - are they scattering too? What about planets? Atoms? I saw a documentary. A scientist was demonstrating how the universe is expanding. He drew circles of galaxies on a rubber square. Then he pulled the corners. The circles scattered. Then aligned one circle before stretching with the same circle after stretching and showed how all the other circles ran away from our circle. And the farther the circle was from ours, the farther it ran away. It all made sense. But the circles also increased in size in such an experiment. So we're all expanding, our atoms are scattering, etc. But if everything in the universe is increasing in size, then our ruler, by which we measure the distance, also grows in proportion to everything. So any distance measured by our growing ruler does not change. Thus, it is impossible to measure the expansion of the Universe, as any standard (ruler) of such measurement also grows. It turns out that the universe is not expanding, at least from the point of view of an observer inside this universe. Can someone please clarify.
I will clarify. The expansion occurs at scales where there is very little gravitational coupling between objects, the supercollapse scale. It is interesting, by the way, that it is at these scales that the universe loses the property of heterogeneity of visible matter: at smaller scales it is very strongly clustered in levels (the average density of the galaxy is much larger than the density of intergalactic space, then compare the density of star clusters and average galaxy density, density of star system and interstellar matter, density of matter of stars and planets and average density of elephant system, etc.etc. to the depth of matter), but on the larger ones - nothing, everything is homogeneous, which indicates the absence of interaction.
For example, already each galaxy individually is not expanding anywhere. Not to mention atoms. In other words, the ruler does not grow anywhere, and the "scientist" from the "documentary", as you can see, is a common clown.
If it's all sucked up everywhere, how am I supposed to believe in expansion?
And if you look at pictures of galaxies, it looks more like the scattering of matter from the centres.
Matter has not travelled far from the centre and there is more than enough space for scattering.
Stars are removed compactly as they move away. And there aren't any at a certain distance, which doesn't really make sense for suction.
Hz. Modern cosmology is all about "stretching". I'm exaggerating, of course, about "all of it", but there really are over the top. "Dark Matter", for example, is definitely out of thin air. And so on.
And it is possible to speculate. For example, your "it looks like" is not proof that it is. For exactly "scattering" to fix it the observational period is not enough so far. But even if there is, who says that it is due to black holes? That they have anything to do with it at all?