A Theory Suggesting Black Holes Don’t Just Swallow Matter, They Also Tear and Fling It Away – Looking for Feedback

[adamator202]

Hi everyone,
I'm Adamator202. I've been fascinated by space—especially black holes—since I was a child. I’d like to share a theory I’ve developed, and I’d love to hear your thoughts, questions, and criticisms.


---

Core Idea

Black holes are often described as cosmic vacuums that swallow everything. But what if, instead of simply pulling matter inward, they also shred and eject it through extreme spin and centrifugal forces?


---

How It Might Work

Accretion Disk and High Rotation
Black holes typically have a rapidly spinning accretion disk of gas and dust. Due to friction and gravitational energy, this disk becomes extremely energetic.

Centrifugal Forces and Magnetic Fields
The disk’s high-speed rotation creates outward centrifugal forces. Combined with intense magnetic fields, these forces may tear apart approaching matter and eject it, especially through polar jets.

Tidal Disruption of Stars
When a star gets too close, tidal forces can rip it apart. Some of its mass may fall into the black hole, but a significant portion may lose its form and be scattered into space at high velocity.


---

Pulsars as Supporting Evidence

Pulsars are neutron stars formed when massive stars explode. They rotate extremely fast and emit strong electromagnetic radiation. These objects:

Are extremely dense and close to becoming black holes.

Spin at incredible speeds, causing powerful emissions.


This supports the idea that high-speed rotation alone can shred matter and launch energy — even without forming a full black hole. So, black holes may be capable of even more dramatic effects.


---

Why This Theory Matters

It challenges the "vacuum cleaner" model of black holes.

It presents black holes as violent engines that both consume and reject matter.

It may help explain how relativistic jets form.

It encourages new thinking about angular momentum and extreme space environments.



---

What Do You Think?

Does this idea align with known astrophysical models? Are there similar theories or research papers out there? I’d love to hear your feedback.

Thanks for reading!

— Adamator202


---

 

[Astraeus]

I fed your post to ChatGPT. I hope you don't mind.​

​

Summary of the Core Idea​

The post proposes that black holes are not just gravitational sinks, but violent rotational engines that can tear matter apart and eject it, primarily due to:

• High rotational energy
• Centrifugal forces
• Magnetic field interactions

It brings in:

• Accretion disk dynamics
• Tidal disruption events (TDEs)
• Polar jet formation
• Pulsars as comparative analogs

---

Scientific Grounding and Strengths​

1. Accretion disk dynamics and magnetic field-driven jets are well-established in relativistic astrophysics. The post is correct that:
   • Energy builds in the disk due to friction, gravity, and rotation
   • Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effects are critical in launching jets along the poles (e.g., via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism)
   • TDEs are real and observable: matter is stretched and flung due to tidal gravity
2. Pulsars as analogs is a reasonable intuition:
   • Pulsars are highly energetic, spinning neutron stars
   • The comparison does highlight that rotation and magnetism alone can produce strong emissions — even without an event horizon
3. The poster rightly questions the oversimplified “cosmic vacuum” metaphor, encouraging a more dynamical picture.

---

Points of Critique and Clarification​

1. Centrifugal force as a driving mechanism is misleading in relativistic contexts:
   • In general relativity, especially near the event horizon, the concept of centrifugal force breaks down
   • Frame dragging and spacetime curvature dominate, not Newtonian-style outward force
2. Matter ejection is not directly due to rotation alone:
   • Jets are thought to arise from magnetic field interactions with the ergosphere or inner accretion disk — not just from "spin throwing matter outward"
   • Spin is important (especially in Kerr black holes), but energy extraction mechanisms (like Penrose process or Blandford-Znajek) are more subtle
3. Pulsars are not necessarily precursors to black holes:
   • They are neutron stars, and while dense, they are stabilized by degeneracy pressure
   • Their emission mechanisms are well understood and not the same as black hole jet physics
4. The post lacks references to existing models or observational signatures:
   • It would strengthen the idea to tie in known GR-MHD simulations
   • There’s no mention of collimation, jet stability, or Eddington limits

---

Overall Evaluation​

This post is a well-meaning speculative synthesis of several real ideas, with a few conceptual oversimplifications. It is not wrong, but it risks blending relativistic phenomena with Newtonian language, which can lead to misunderstanding.

It is important to know that ChatGPT evaluated your ideas based on standard physics models. I didn't train this particular instance on UMT and I didn't ask it to review your theory based on UMT.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, Black Holes expel matter through polar jets but the entire process of equatorial inflow and polar outflow is entirely outside the event horizon. Once crossing the event horizon, nothing can come out.

 

[Astraeus]

Yes, Black Holes expel matter through polar jets but the entire process of equatorial inflow and polar outflow is entirely outside the event horizon. Once crossing the event horizon, nothing can come out.

You are describing the standard model's assumptions based on the mathematics. It is important to note that we can't actually observe that no matter escapes. It is also important to note that the standard model assumes the black hole is a perfect sphere or axisymmetric. These are very big assumptions with their own baggage.

I have mentioned this in other threads. I actually think black holes are toroidal. The accretion disc that we see is the toroidal structure of the black hole. There is no singularity.

 

[billslugg]

You are correct. I only discuss the Standard Model, no alternative models. I have a personal policy of not understanding only one model at a time and right now I am not understanding the Standard Model. Your model will have to wait in line.

 

[adamator202]

Yes, Black Holes expel matter through polar jets but the entire process of equatorial inflow and polar outflow is entirely outside the event horizon. Once crossing the event horizon, nothing can come out.

My theory is not to swallow it, but to take it under gravity and orbit it at an extremely high speed. The speed of light that I mentioned would cause a star, a planet or other large object to break up and be scattered into space by centrifugal force.

 

[adamator202]

I fed your post to ChatGPT. I hope you don't mind.​

​

Summary of the Core Idea​

The post proposes that black holes are not just gravitational sinks, but violent rotational engines that can tear matter apart and eject it, primarily due to:

• High rotational energy
• Centrifugal forces
• Magnetic field interactions

It brings in:

• Accretion disk dynamics
• Tidal disruption events (TDEs)
• Polar jet formation
• Pulsars as comparative analogs

---

Scientific Grounding and Strengths​

1. Accretion disk dynamics and magnetic field-driven jetsare well-established in relativistic astrophysics. The post is correct that:
   • Energy builds in the disk due to friction, gravity, and rotation
   • Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effects are critical in launching jets along the poles (e.g., via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism)
   • TDEs are real and observable: matter is stretched and flung due to tidal gravity
2. Pulsars as analogsis a reasonable intuition:
   • Pulsars are highly energetic, spinning neutron stars
   • The comparison does highlight that rotation and magnetism alone can produce strong emissions — even without an event horizon
3. The poster rightly questions the oversimplified “cosmic vacuum” metaphor, encouraging a more dynamical picture.

---

Points of Critique and Clarification​

1. Centrifugal force as a driving mechanismis misleading in relativistic contexts:
   • In general relativity, especially near the event horizon, the concept of centrifugal force breaks down
   • Frame dragging and spacetime curvature dominate, not Newtonian-style outward force
2. Matter ejection is not directly due to rotation alone:
   • Jets are thought to arise from magnetic field interactions with the ergosphere or inner accretion disk — not just from "spin throwing matter outward"
   • Spin is important (especially in Kerr black holes), but energy extraction mechanisms (like Penrose process or Blandford-Znajek) are more subtle
3. Pulsars are not necessarily precursors to black holes:
   • They are neutron stars, and while dense, they are stabilized by degeneracy pressure
   • Their emission mechanisms are well understood and not the same as black hole jet physics
4. The post lacks references to existing models or observational signatures:
   • It would strengthen the idea to tie in known GR-MHD simulations
   • There’s no mention of collimation, jet stability, or Eddington limits

---

Overall Evaluation​

This post is a well-meaning speculative synthesis of several real ideas, with a few conceptual oversimplifications. It is not wrong, but it risks blending relativistic phenomena with Newtonian language, which can lead to misunderstanding.

It is important to know that ChatGPT evaluated your ideas based on standard physics models. I didn't train this particular instance on UMT and I didn't ask it to review your theory based on UMT.

Yes, it could be misunderstood. I wrote this with chatgpt. He might have misspelled what I wanted to say or added something else.

 

[Astraeus]

You are correct. I only discuss the Standard Model, no alternative models. I have a personal policy of not understanding only one model at a time and right now I am not understanding the Standard Model. Your model will have to wait in line.

I can’t condemn you for that policy—it implies both honesty and a subtle sense of humor. Your straightforward perspective is exactly the kind I hope to earn, even if only after the Standard Model finishes with your attention.

 

[Ken Fabian]

It sounds quite reasonable that in the process of drawing matter in that the extreme compressing of matter will throw out energy and some of that material outwards, at greater than escape velocity. I just don't think the suggestion this would happen is describing anything outside current 'mainstream' understanding.

 

[adamator202]

It sounds quite reasonable that in the process of drawing matter in that the extreme compressing of matter will throw out energy and some of that material outwards, at greater than escape velocity. I just don't think the suggestion this would happen is describing anything outside current 'mainstream' understanding

Thanks, Ken — that's a great point. What I emphasize in my theory is exactly this: Before any "swallowing" occurs, a black hole — due to its extreme rotational energy and gravitational pull — can accelerate matter to such high speeds that it breaks apart and is scattered into space.

The key difference from the mainstream model is that instead of matter simply "falling in," I propose that approaching matter is torn apart by extreme orbital velocities (close to the speed of light) and flung outward by centrifugal effects. So rather than focusing on the in-fall, I focus on the disintegration and expulsion process before the event horizon is crossed.

Yes, these dynamics are touched on in standard models — like accretion disks and jets — but my approach puts the shredding and dispersal mechanism at the center, powered by spin and magnetism. It's more like reinterpreting known phenomena from a different physical perspective.