You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point
*

My point isnā€™t that a black hole is unique or anything else of the sort. Heavy objects try to suck in lighter objects around them. The reason I was saying I would only sometimes describe it as being ā€œsucked inā€ was because that suggests being significantly pulled towards the object, whereas if it is a fairly stable orbit or the objectā€™s trajectory being slightly bent, I wouldnā€™t describe it as such (black hole or otherwise). Even with a gas giant, It wouldnā€™t feel wrong to say it sucks in nearby debris.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Ok, then itā€™s not the condition of ā€œbeing a black holeā€ what makes it ā€œsuck inā€, but its mass, which can be varied (according to Stephen Hawking, the theoretical minimum mass to form a black hole would be 0.01 mg)

Saying that a black hole ā€œsucks inā€ in that sense is as valid as saying that any object with mass (like a tenis ball) ā€œsucks inā€. But I donā€™t think thatā€™s what the article was referring to as a ā€œmythā€, the myth the article targets is the suck power being a particular characteristic of black holes.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science

!science@lemmy.ml

Create post

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


Community stats

  • 626

    Monthly active users

  • 1.2K

    Posts

  • 3.5K

    Comments

Community moderators