I would say that it's individual components orbit their common center of gravity. "spinning" invokes an image of something that rotates like a single piece, and the galaxy does not do that. Yes, but then my car drives down the road, and it also has air-conditioning, but that does not mean that the two are interrelated.
Reading too much of popostuff? If material never crosses EH and swept up only, then how the BH gets bulkier ? BTW, are you aware what is magnetic field lines?
From the article paddoboy linked to: "But instead of falling into the black hole, a small fraction of particles get accelerated to speed almost as great as the speed of light and spewn out in two narrow beams along the axis of rotation of the black hole." It is obvious from context that paddoboy is referring to these particles alone and not the majority of material falling into the black hole. Your comment leads me to one of two conclusions: 1. You didn't read/understand the article. or 2. You are being intellectually dishonest by deliberately misconstruing his statements.
What difference does it make? An electronic is going to follow the least path of resistance. I could mix a corrosive hardener with its base spin them around and pour them over concrete "which corodes aluminum" and the only thing I would find is the hardener likes the base more than the concrete despite the mixing procedure on earth. The same amount of energy would be applied with or without centripetal force or gravity... the only difference is the mixture of chemicals. Yes nucleus do spin. The more spin the more often they will reject energy. There is a huge difference between reject, absorb, and allow to pass. Something that will "allow to pass" relies on entropy. That is to say if I mixed up a fresh batch of concrete added my base and corrosive mixture I would expect the corrosive to more deeply penetrate the concrete than if the concrete were dry.
Uh... nope. Russ has a longstanding miss understanding of physical laws most prevalent in his posts against the LHC...
Not if the orbiting particle is synchronous to the nucleus. I'm being kind. Maybe I have stepped into the wrong moment or current physics has played a dubious effect to my mind but I doubt it...
That sounds like word salad. What do you mean by "synchronous to the nucleus"? That is not a known property of atomic structure.
Don't take it personal I can disagree and agree with most well articulated sentences. Some sort of prognostic talent I likeable dispise
When your watches "'"' min hand and hour hand act at the same time. Synchronous "That" is and adjective and your going to have to be more specific
It is a known process of watches. So unless you plan on saying what "that" specifically is or how " that" trumps force equalling force I'm afraid your at a loss of words. Scary.
But we're not talking about watches -we're talking about atoms. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not sure where your confusion lies. You said: To which I said Because there is nothing in there salient to atomic physics. It's word salad - words strung together.
