this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
-1 points (48.8% liked)

Science

13414 readers
93 users here now

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


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

My point isn'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 "sucked in" was because that suggests being significantly pulled towards the object, whereas if it is a fairly stable orbit or the object's trajectory being slightly bent, I wouldn't describe it as such (black hole or otherwise). Even with a gas giant, It wouldn't feel wrong to say it sucks in nearby debris.

[โ€“] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Ok, then it's not the condition of "being a black hole" what makes it "suck in", 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 "sucks in" in that sense is as valid as saying that any object with mass (like a tenis ball) "sucks in". But I don't think that's what the article was referring to as a "myth", the myth the article targets is the suck power being a particular characteristic of black holes.