Blackholes Don't Tilt

Painius wrote,

The problem i see with it is that if gravity actually does flow, and
if it is the
foundation of the energy density of the
vacuum of space,..

Paine, it is not gravity per se that 'flows'. It is the spatial medium's
*state of flowing* that causes gravity.

And the energy-density of the medium is a function of its state of
expansion, not of gravity per se.

oc

Painius wrote,

So if Bert is right, then black holes *will*
tilt with the curvature of the toroidal
structure.

No, not at all. The gravitic bipolarity of any BH manifests _only_ in
the immediate accretion zone of the BH. At any distance further out, the
BH's gravitiy field is monopolar.

If we can find a relationship between a
black hole's distance from us and the
angle of tilt, could we get some idea of
the nature of the Universe outside of our
light- horizon?

This is ruled out by the totally random orientation of galaxies and
their BH cores.

oc

Hi Painius and oc Like some help thinking about being in the universe
and lost(lost in space). How would I find up or down? front or back? Am
I moving,or is the background moving? I see a light that is getting
brighter and brighter. Is it just getting brighter,or is it coming
towards me? I'm I moving towards it? This is making me dizzy. I want
to go back to that flat surface of the earth,with my feet on the
ground,and have back my best reference frames. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Scott You ended your post with "so ?" Like pendulums
at the true north pole of the earth align their swing with the
stars,blackholes align their axis also to the stars. Do you like this
theory? Like you would say Scott "go prove it" "Show me some
math" How come its not in a science journal. The reason is Scott I
only thought of it 48 hours ago,and I only print my thoughts out to
you,and those that read my news groups post all over the world. Bert
PS Scott someday it will only be the brain(thoughts) of man that will
be able to probe out trillions and trillions and one more trillion to
the horizon of our universe.


If what you said was true then one would expect the spin axis of the Sun and the
orbital axis of the solar system to be aligned with the plane of our galaxy. It
isn't. We observe eclipsing binary system, spectroscopic systems that are not
eclipsing, spectrum binary systems which are neither eclipsing nor demonstrating
the Doppler effect that characteristically identifies a system as a
spectroscopic binary system. In all those cases, there does not seem to be a
preferred spin direction. The spin directions seem to be random. My "So?"
response was therefore appropriate as there is no implications that black holes
would align with stars. Their orientation would be as randomly aligned as that
of the systems and stars from which they are formed.

Painius wrote:
"J. Scott Miller" wrote...
in message ...

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

I keep playing with my old gyroscope and a theory comes to mind.
Blackholes spinning close to "C" are perfectly vertical relative to the
inertia force(Much's theory) of the universe. There is no
force in nature that can tilt a fast spinning blackhole. A blackhole is
nature"s great gyroscope,and its vertical axis will be used someday as a
reference frame to show north and south,for it will be a constant.
Bert oc part comes from your posting


So, is this inertial force random in direction? The rotation of stars seems to
be as is the orientation of galaxies containing those stars. This implies that
black holes should have axes of rotation random in direction relative to each other.

So...?


'Lo Scott --

The uniform rotation of stars with the orientation of galaxies
containing those stars would suggest an even larger scale of
uniformity?

Actually, it implies a conservation of angular momentum in the presence of a
center-seeking force


So perhaps while a black hole's axis of rotation remains fixed
to a non-random inertial force, its surrounding galaxy disk
oscillates much like a dish spinning on its edge on a table. The
stable black hole would tend to dampen these galactic disk
oscillations.

You really shouldn't be making up phases as you go. You can have an axis of
rotation oriented to an overall reference frame, but not to a non-random
inertial force, whatever that means. And you probably should not ascribe to
black holes properties they do not have as ordinary stars from which they were
created. Mass is mass, no matter what form it takes. Differences in its
affects on its local surroundings are due to its distribution within its volume.
But on the interstellar scale, stars, black holes, neutron stars, etc. simply
act as point masses, randomly oriented in their spins, but point masses none the
less. In the scheme of a galaxy, the effect of all these random spin
orientations of all these point sources would be a general null result due to
cancellation.



When these oscillations finally cease, then perhaps the galaxy
takes on a different shape? maybe going from a spiral to an
irregular or some other shape?

Or, more likely, a spiral can become an irregular by means of the collision with
another galaxy.

No, the system of stars we call a galaxy is perfectly content as such. It is
not likely to disrupt from within. External forces, like the gravitational pull
of another galaxy are necessary, as has been evidenced by the number of
irregular galaxies observed and the local space surrounding them.

Hi Scott Well the blackhole with a mass of 2 million suns at the Milky
Way core had to be there first. reason for that is it is right in the
middle,and is the main reason in the forming of the stars in this
particular area of space. If not for blackholes(dark matter ) stars
would be spread out in space(no clustering) Now flat spiral galaxies
have streamers(arms),and that tells us the direction the galaxy is
rotating. It fits that the blackhole is turning in that same direction.
The hub of a wheel turns in the same direction as the rim(its spokes
take care of that) Gravity acts like spokes. I know I took a
great liberty in my thinking to say the blackhole finds its direction of
axis spin to line up with the gravity,or inertia force (take your pick)
of the entire universe. Still I post thoughts that enter my mind,and its
hard to get to badly flamed when theorizing blackholes. We know flat
spiral galaxies are tilted every which way in our line of view(yes) My
thought again go with the stars angle is the tilt of the blackhole,and
there is no force that can change that angle. Well possibly a collision
of two core size bhackholes,but that is a long shot. Now I should be
bringing in a gyrocompass for that uses a pendulum action, for I know
that has to fit in well with these thoughts. We know what the stars can
do to the swing of pendulums Bert

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"BenignVanilla" wrote...
in message ...

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...

I keep playing with my old gyroscope and a theory comes to mind.
Blackholes spinning close to "C" are perfectly vertical relative to
the
inertia force(Much's theory) of the universe. There is no
force in nature that can tilt a fast spinning blackhole. A blackhole
is
nature"s great gyroscope,and its vertical axis will be used someday as
a
reference frame to show north and south,for it will be a constant.
Bert oc part comes from your posting

But what is up and what is down in the Universe?

BV.

Not so mysterious, BV... here on Earth, as on any mass, "down"
would be in the direction of the flow of gravity. And "up" is the
opposite direction.

And on an even *more* arbitrary note, astronomers like to view
the Solar System as having a "top" and "bottom." If viewed with
the planets revolving around the Sun in a counter-clockwise
direction, we are viewing the "tops" of the planets (in most cases)
and their North poles. So in this case, if one looks out into the
cosmos from, say, Antarctica, then one is looking "down."
snip

So where would the arbitrary point for BH's be set?

BV.

Like I said theorizing about blackholes is fun,and I get little flaming.
Now this has to be a good theory. "Blackholes are not effected by
precession." Another reason its good "its Short" Bert

Blackholes must have some heat(temperature) it should be very
low.Possibly blackholes get colder with greater size and density?? If
lower than the 2.7 temperature of space than blackholes can continually
absorb microwave photons(an endless source) Going again with size and
density making BH colder, than those that are at the galaxy cores with a
mass of millions of suns must be the coldest of all.?? Now
before you flame me for these thoughts by saying density creates heat.
Let me remind you that lack of motion of molecules,and atoms is what we
are doing to get close to absolute zero. The blackholes accomplish this.
Neutron stars partially accomplish this. It all fits.
Just one more thought. "To find a free BH in space" it might be
possible for us to find a cold spot(very sensitive detector) that cold
spot is a blackhole just emerged in space absorbing microwaves. How cold
the spot is will let us determine the blackholes size Bert
Who ever can find a free blackhole(a loner) will get a Nobel the
next day,and deserve it

In message ,
G=EMC^2 Glazier writes
Blackholes must have some heat(temperature) it should be very
low.Possibly blackholes get colder with greater size and density?? If
lower than the 2.7 temperature of space than blackholes can continually
absorb microwave photons(an endless source) Going again with size and
density making BH colder, than those that are at the galaxy cores with a
mass of millions of suns must be the coldest of all.?? Now
before you flame me for these thoughts by saying density creates heat.
Let me remind you that lack of motion of molecules,and atoms is what we
are doing to get close to absolute zero. The blackholes accomplish this.
Neutron stars partially accomplish this. It all fits.
Just one more thought. "To find a free BH in space" it might be
possible for us to find a cold spot(very sensitive detector) that cold
spot is a blackhole just emerged in space absorbing microwaves. How cold
the spot is will let us determine the blackholes size Bert
Who ever can find a free blackhole(a loner) will get a Nobel the
next day,and deserve it

The theory is absolutely right, but in practice I fear that any real
black hole will be surrounded by stuff that is falling into it and being
heated - after all, that's how the candidates we have so far have been
detected. And just to complicate things, regions in space colder than
the microwave background have already been found, but they aren't black
holes.
Astronomers and physicists would love to find one, though, so they are
probably looking for BH's in very empty regions, or that have "eaten"
everything within reach. As you say, that trip to Stockholm is a great
incentive!
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk