What if matter can not enter black holes but only orbit it due

>>8125246
:holes gravitational forces are too weak to keep stars and planets from forming within its disk
thus black holes are just gravitational holes in space time that only recycle matter
It does not destroy or touch matter its self.
hawking is a quack.
and black holes are fucking matter redistributors.

This seems autistic. Things do not orbit earth because of its spin. They orbit because of their horizontal velocity. The super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy for example does have complete solar systems orbiting it but nothing orbits at a super close distance like near the event horizon.

>>8125275
you can not create a orbit around nothing in space
gravitational spin=/= spin

>only orbit it due to gravitational spin

GR says that anything inside the event horizon not only can't move outwards and escape but must move inwards.

>black hole
>>>/x/

>>8125293
I am saying nothing reaches the event horizon. Nothing

>>8125284
Huh? No one said things orbit around nothing. Orbit is simply not falling towards an object by keeping a horizontal velocity that keeps it away from the object. You can orbit a black hole as long as you are outside the event horizon. Take your meds or just open up a physics textbook.

>>8125298
Why?

>>8125298
So if I drop a particle from a great distance, initially at rest and it falls directly at the black hole what stops it entering the event horizon?

>>8125299
>You can orbit a black hole as long as you are outside the event horizon.
Even outside of the event horizon the closest orbits are not stable and will decay inwards.

>>8125302
because matter only orbits it.
>>8125299
horizontal velocity requires gravity to orbit thus gravity Its self must have spin
>>8125308
I am saying gravity has spin to keep things orbit due to factors like denser the object more gravitational spin it has.
gravitational spin=/=spin
instead of gravity working as a cone for dense objects attracting objects it works as a whirlpool due to gravitational spin
sending matter into a orbit.
denser the object more gravitational spin
black holes would have a gravitational spin orbit spin so great matter would not enter it.
the gravitational spin would create a orbit because space in my theory is not a perfect cone shape around a black hole but a Whirlpool shape.

>>8125342
>because matter only orbits it.
Why does matter only orbit it? You just repeated what I was asking you to explain.

>horizontal velocity requires gravity to orbit thus gravity Its self must have spin
No, that doesn't follow at all. Gravity doesn't have spin, it just pulls objects in one direction. If an object has no horizontal velocity it will just fall straight into the object. The same is true for a black hole. You lose.

>>8125356
prove gravity does not have spin.

>>8125342
>I am saying gravity has spin to keep things orbit
But it cannot keep things in orbit indefinitely by any means. Orbiting bodies radiate gravitational waves and their orbits decay.

>>8125358
>Prove me wrong
That's not how science works. If you suggest a hypothesis it's your job to demonstrate it is plausible. People will only start to test your ideas after you have proven they have some worth, you have not done that.

>>8125358
Simple. Do you feel any force pushing you to the side? No, just the one pushing you directly down towards the center of the earth. So your "hypothesis" is false.

>>8125374
every galaxy looks like a galactic hurricane >>8125371
I did not say it could last forever
but something like a black hole in theory would keep a gravitational Whirlpool strong enough to keep up its orbit throughout its lifespan
>>8125385
If I was to slam a galactic break on the normal spin of the earth i am 100% sure you would feel a force pushing you to the side.

>>8125407
>If I was to slam a galactic break on the normal spin of the earth i am 100% sure you would feel a force pushing you to the side.
Of course, because there is momentum from the earth's spin. This has nothing to do with gravity. If there was "gravitational spin" you wouldn't need to provide horizontal velocity to be in orbit. But you do. If you have no horizontal velocity you fall straight to the object. Your "hypothesis" makes no sense and is empirically falsified.

>>8125438
what creates angular momentum then if not a gravity whirlpool created by massive object angular momentum has no reason to exist and everything would fall to the center of each object
gravity must cause angular momentum.

>>8125447
>what creates angular momentum
Inertia. Moving bodies will continue to move until a force changes their movement.

Why would you need to stop the spin of the earth in order to show a "gravitational spin"? The gravitational spin should be effecting you regardless of the spin of the earth, just like real gravity pulls you to the center of the earth regardless of how the earth is moving.

Kerr black holes.

>>8125450
Every thing in the universe shows angular momentum. Inertia would be unable to create the spin we see on planets and stars and black holes thus something besides Inertia is creating angular momentum.
Moving bodies will continue to move until a force changes their movement.
THAT DOES NOT CREATE SPIN. that's great for planetary/bombardment but not creating a accretion disk around a black hole.
THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING IN PHYSICS
Something that creates angular momentum around huge dense objects:gravitational spin
>>8125494
Exactly this would keep matter from entering it at all due to spin.

>>8125506
>Inertia would be unable to create the spin we see on planets and stars and black holes thus something besides Inertia is creating angular momentum.
Inertia is the reason why planets continue spinning, inertia doesn't create spinning per se. The reason planets spin is because they are accretions of matter which had angular momentum from when the galaxy formed from a cloud of dust that collapsed on itself. This made the matter in galaxies spread out, and like a ballerina They also gain spin from objects colliding with them. All rotational momentum originated with transfers of force and is not an internal effect of gravity. This is evident in the fact that the rotation of Earth is slowing, not constant with its mass.

>>8125506
You have no idea what you're talking about. Open up a freshman physics book before you open your mouth.

>>8125526
Even then objects would needed be bombarded at correct slanted angles to achieve the spin we see
There is something missing.
Something causing angular momentum bombardment. Yes a object can spin with bombardment but it wont spin in a disk.

>>8125600
>Even then objects would needed be bombarded at correct slanted angles to achieve the spin we see
Any sufficiently large accumulation of dust will accrue angular momentum upon collapsing in on itself, because dust moving in random directions will also be attracted towards the center of mass. Regular gravity already explains this. Your hypothesis is falsified (the results we would expect to see from "gravitational spin" are not observed, such as a force to the side in addition to momentum) and unnecessary (doesn't explain anything we haven't already explained).

>>8125342
>nothing enters the event horizon
>why
>because I say so
just shut the fuck up and get the hell back to your containment board, fucking /x/tard

File: 84865486548.gif (358KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 512x288px

So everyone in this thread was too retarded to tell me the correct name for my own theory that already exists aka Frame-dragging
thus proving my theory Frame-dragging can be strong enough around a black hole to keep matter from entering and only orbiting.