Phinds said:
...It IS the way "feeding" black holes look, but once a black hole has eaten everything in the neighborhood, it just looks like a hole. (it ISN'T a hole, but it looks, and to some extent, acts like one)...
This sounds pretty definite. But aren't black holes more mysterious than this?
For instance, don't they hide behind event horizons, so that you can't actually see how they look, just as Naty1 says. And what pictures were you referring to, twofish-quant, when you said: "Pictures of real black holes have a disc of material falling in and a jet coming out." Images obtained with telescopes? Or artists impressions of what are assumed to be invisible black holes?
But the assumed whirlpool-like character referred to in the O.P. may only be a rather unjustified reflection of the observed fact that nearly all astronomical objects rotate and store angular momentum. The reason for this, I think, is simple, and I bang on about it. It is generally assumed that IN THE BEGINNING there was (somewhat mysteriously) a Gravitating Fluid (see the Standard Model of Cosmology --- or Genesis, if you prefer).
Gravity is a central force that shears fluids. (To see this, think of a fluid disc of test-mass particles following circular orbits around a central mass. Orbital speed is inversely proportional to the square root of individual orbit radii; wheras in a rigid rotating disc, speed is proportional to radius. Such a non-rigid fluid disc, or any cloud of particles gravitating in a non-uniform field, is inevitably sheared by gravity.)
Sheared fluids are known to form a great variety of rotating structures and substructures. Vortices, hurricanes, whirlpools and whorls are examples.
One therefore expects asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies and black holes to rotate, since they are all structures ultimately arising from the gravitational condensation of the primeval Gravitating Fluid.
Depicting invisible black holes as whirlpools may be making an unjustified assumption, but artistic license is no crime.