Submitted by **JustAPerspective** t3_10kenxm
in **space**

#
**Puffin_fan**
t1_j5q59yn wrote

Just a very brief thought.

Not sure if the author means "spherical" vs round [ in other words, symmetric in 2 dimensions ]

Probably spherical [ symmetric in 3 dimensions ].

The event horizon has to be non - symmetric [ imho ] since attraction of mass occurs in a non - symmetric space and with a non - symmetric distribution of matter.

Galaxies [ where many black holes occur ] are non -symmetric by mass distribution. [ another poster is welcome to differ, however ]

#
**AndyZep**
t1_j5qhr9x wrote

I do like this answer better than my own. So the black hole is reacting to the distribution of the mass of matter around it. That makes sense. I also said round rather than spherical.

Puffin 1 Andy 0

#
**Puffin_fan**
t1_j5qikc7 wrote

Hi. Thanks. The answer of non - 3 D symmetry could be quite wrong, under a few circumstances:

(1) Enforced symmetries due to Standard Model extensions to black and white holes

(2) And [ very similar if not the same ] the outcome of General Relativity for rotating black holes [ or white holes ].

The questions about how to account for rotational momentum for the Standard Model when merged with General Relativity singularities is something that probably should be left to expert mathematicians. { : < }

#
**Cnoized**
t1_j5r5wth wrote

I think you should look at Swartzschild radius and why the event horizion accually occurs. I believe that there is such a large density of mass in a black hole that most asymetries in the event horizion would be indistiguishable from a perfect sphere.

Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments