|
I like what you're saying about the attempt of galaxies and black holes to form in 2-D. I call it quasi-2-D in describing for instance, water surface waves, as opposed to sound waves through the body of the water.
But it really is 3-D in total, with the equation under consideration looking at the forces operating in only two of the dimensions. Take the centrifugal force out of the equation, and black holes and spiral galaxies immediately form nice, neat point-singularities occupying no volume and with infinite density; -but in reality: nice, neat 3-D spheres.
What has been "proven" mathematically; that in the case of a new agglomeration of stars having no initial orbital rotation, they eventually collapse into disappearance? Or perhaps a string having no thickness? Well then, of course, we re-install some things we previously ignored, in order to get us back out of the "event horizon" of a mathematical black hole.
We can ignore friction in a simple physics demo, but it doesn't go away. And in aeronautics we can consider lift vs gravity, while ignoring drag vs thrust. This is because: "Forces in the vertical plane act independently of forces acting in the horizontal plane".
And I really have no problem with things being worked out with math physics. But tell me; don't chemists use those physical molecular models, automotive engineers use crash-test-dummies, and physicists use wind tunnels? How about LIGO and CERN? And what about assorted neutrino detectors, that have a habit of presenting surprises? What about the surprising accelerated redshift from far objects? What about the Mysterious New Force affecting the space probe?
If everything physical can be satisfactorily worked out on a calculator, then why go to the trouble and expense of physical experiments like Poisson's Bright Spot, Maxwell's, Michelson-Morley's, Einstein's Light Deflection in Egypt?
Surely we shouldn't be all that confident of a math model of the inside of a black hole.
If the "excretion" of matter through n/s jets is purely a math effect that has been figured out, then surely the Spiral Galaxy Windup Dilemma solution should be a simple math excercise, not requiring physical/mechanical considerations.
"Excretion" at ~c, suggests a huge impelling force. Is this just a factor in an equation? Or does it relate to the real universe as "work done"? If so, what generates the force; as in horizontal-acceleration mass measurements?
What is the description of the "force particles" where the rubber meets the road, as you're accelerating or braking your car? Which way do they act in Reality, for accelerating and braking? Do they reverse their force, or does Relativity say it isn't included as a necessary part of the equation? Does this mean it really doesn't matter if we hit the gas or the brake, because actually the car moves or stops according to the will of the Observer? Does the car move because of force generated plus steering, or does it get from Hamilton to Montreal just because of a serendipidous coincidence of my non-math will and random-math probability?
If I mechanically make the car go where I want it to, then Physical Causality / Result is in force. If so, it applies everywhere in the universe. And the math functions must describe mechanical functions, as surely as the simple Laws of Levers.
And surely the Myterious New Re-Accelerating Force of Expansion, and Mysterious New Force of Contraction should also be simple enough to resolve in a single equation; that allows both Expansion and Contraction simultaneously.
"mimic...to prevent..." suggests intelligent awareness and intent.
"Density, things, stability, prevention, formation, black holes, collapse, spherical, football and force", are all mechanical descriptions. |
