Recent content by Bujon

Ok well explained, so a black hole in that case represents a stable system. They are not necessarily 'growing' eating up everything in sight, but more have finished the main course and are now sat bulging on the sofa so to speak.

Again it brings you back to relativity in the sense of where you are looking and from what you are measuring against.

Can gravity pull from a centre point equally 3dimensionally? And is that just down to the mass? If that was the case then whatever your approach to a black hole would mean you were going to be sucked toward it, and the event horizon would be your point of no return, which I can grasp. Just not...

I could be wrong, but my common sense approach is you have to define with what you are relating the observation. You could be retrograde to the spinning rotation of an object, but prograde to your own orbital path around that object, irrespective of the central objects spin?

I would say its rotation would be retrograde in relation to the rotation of the sun, but prograde in relation to its own orbital rotation of the sun

Assuming the OP might be assuming the axis of rotation of the planet is in the same plane as that of the central object? And that the perspective is from a relative viewpoint to both.

If it is orbiting anticlockwise around an object which is rotating clockwise, then assuming by retrograde rotation in relation to the motion around that central object, I would suggest it too would rotate clockwise.

Hello all, looking forward to bouncing around ideas, and help and clarity with my ignorance of classical physics.

So having considered the classical depiction of a black hole resembling a whirlpool, my thought process is that a black hole must be a 3-d phenomenon. Therefore I can not see how a event horizon/swirlpool model could be plausible unless the centre of a black hole was spinning and literally was...