A Newtonian system that mimics the baldness of rotating black holes

At conceptual level the geometry of particle arrangement consist of layers, which are alternating the classical and non-classical behavior. If we compress dense particle system, the particle fluctuations behave like particle fluctuation in gas driven by Newtonian mechanics, then in fluid, then in foam gradually. At the end the resulting system of particles will become so dense and chaotic, the observable reality would consist from subtle and sparse density fluctuations only.

After then just these subtle density fluctuations would become significant with respect of observable reality and whole process can repeat again. Therefore it's not so strange, highly relativistic system, like the black hole exhibits a traces of quantum physics or even Newtonian physics. The highly condensed surface of black hole exhibits some common properties with Newtonian fluids, for example.

http://physics.ap...es/v1/38

Math itself doesn't help us in sorting of pile of equations, which the formal solution provides. A higher level of insight is required to organize results of many modern theories. Such level of understanding can be mediated by pure intuition, only. By my opinion, high level of thinking, as proposed by AWT is necessary to understand the complex emergent phenomena of high degree of complexity.

I can give you a following example of high level thinking, which we can apply for explanation of black hole phenomena, for example. In Hubble depth field the Universe appears like being composed of less or more randomly spreaded swirling galaxies, infinitely. Here's no evidence of limit, coming from Big Bang theory or something similar. The Universe appears infinite.

http://imgsrc.hub...rint.jpg

What the heck all this means?

Well, by AWT spacetime is formed by many tightly condensed/collapsed particles, we can call them gravitons, if you like - it doesn't matter. These particles are moving randomly so their lateral forces will compensate gradually in less or more distant perspective. After then just the surface motion of particles becomes significant, because it cannot compensate so easily.

Under deeper analysis every particle can be approximated by spherical density gradient, which is characterized by its surface vorticity, so called the spin. At the case of water droplet here is many vortex zones at the surface, but if we decrease the size of droplet, only pair of surface vortices can remain by hairy ball theorem. We can say, every tiny droplet is formed by Cooper pair of quantum vortices on background, a pretty well like the vortices inside of boson condensates. We are saying, the spin of every fermion particle is 1/2.

http://en.wikiped..._theorem

Now we can simply say, if we collect sufficiently large system of particles, then the all forces will compensate mutually, just the surface vorticity/spin will remain. Being cumulative, it creates a wildly swirling places randomly spreaded through space.

From this perspective the existence of black holes in our Universe is undeniable: every large space is formed by particles, the surface vorticity of this will cumulate less or more lately under formation of less or more large perturbations, where space-time is swirling wildly. From more general perspective Universe is formed less or more irregular, but infinite lattice of black holes, surrounded by galaxies. These galaxies are behaving like new generation of particles, so from even more general perspective we can expect the formation of black holes lattices composed of black holes and so on.

By my opinion, this can be one from ways, by which we can understand, what we can really see around us. I'm afraid, abstract math won't help us in such imagination. Just at the moment, when we realize, what we want to describe, we can develop a math model safely.

For example, until we realize, the density fluctuations of space-time particles should appear like foamy density fluctuations inside of gas, we can start to believe in strings of string theory, but not before. Without such insight the whole string theory remains ad hoced - no matter, how good experimental predictions it can provide occasionally. It doesn't, and this is just a consequence of fact, scientists have proposed it without deeper understanding of underlying reality. So they've combined a mutually inconsistent postulates.

http://aetherwave...ory.html

Frankly, the dumb formal approach is not, how the science can be made for future. The understanding at predicate logics level should always come first, the formal math later. Without it it's just a blind piling of equations under (futile) hope, someone more clever will find a hidden sense in them.

Contemporary situation in physics is the consequence of "shut-up and calculate" paradigm, as it was proposed by formal science before years.

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
%u2014Hilaire Belloc
http://www.holosc...6bcdajsb&keywords=black holes#dest