• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Ok… so…

    • Pull you in with the power of gravity

    Does not ‘suck’ you in with the power of a vacuum…

    About right?

    • Routhinator@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      You fall into gravity wells, they don’t suck you.

      Best way to understand is to get the mental image of spacetime as a 3d sheet like grid, where each object pushes down on it and creates a pit, or well. The bigger the object the deeper the well, and the more force you will need to stop yourself from sliding towards the object and propelling yourself back up the slope.

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Pretty sure anyone living in these solar systems. Considers their star to suck.

    I imagine all the parties are pretty lame.

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Eh thats kinda nitpicky. For non physics people “sucking in with lots of force” is good enough to describe “absurdly strong gravitational pull”. Its not a myth, its an over simplification.

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I think the point the article was trying to make is that “sucking in with lots of force” does not really happen any differently outside the event horizon of a black hole than it would in the proximity of any other star (or object) with the same mass.

      So it’s addressing the “myth” that being in the proximity of a black hole would inevitably suck you in… however, odds are that if you are not directly aiming for the black hole, even if you did not resist, you would just end up entering an orbit around it, the same way we are currently orbiting the Sun. Or maybe even be catapulted out of it, instead of sucked in.

      The difference would be that past the event horizon you would be torn apart by the space distortion (instead of being cooked alive if it were a star). But theoretically if you can avoid crashing into a star, then you can avoid entering a black hole.

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        does not really happen any differently outside the event horizon of a black hole

        I mean, that’s a pretty big caveat, given that strength of the gravitational force in the object was big enough to create the event horizon in the first place

    • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      It’s exactly the same gravitational pull as the star that previously collapsed… (And I’ve not read the article (yet), this is just a personal nitpick that I’ve had for a LONG time).

      –edit after reading the article–

      In terms of inevitably falling into a black hole, it’s only the material that formed interior to three times the event horizon radius — interior to what’s known as the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) in general relativity — that would inexorably get sucked into it. Compared to what actually falls into the event horizon in our physical reality, the purported “sucking” effects are nowhere to be found. In the end, we have only the force of gravity, and the curved spacetime that would result from the presence of these masses, affecting the evolution of objects located in space at all. The idea that black holes suck anything in is arguably the biggest myth about black holes of all. They grow due to gravitation, and nothing more. In this Universe, that’s more than enough to account for all the phenomena we observe.

      That summary explains it better than I can.

    • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Saw a clip of ol Neil coming along and saying that Mount Everest wasn’t the highest point on Earth to a physicist because of the equatorial bulge and “sea level” not mattering to physicists.

      Yeah sure just blatantly disregard the entire human perspective of the world and how we as people relate to it to say make up some dumb “gotcha haha” to sound smart.

      So many people, him specifically, are incapable of framing things in a non dismissive way. It could have been an interesting point or piece of information about how how large the equatorial bulge is, but he’d rather come off as an insufferable nerd. nerd

  • 474D@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    14 hours ago

    “This is the only context in which black holes even appear to suck matter in: as they absorb matter that undergoes gravitational infall due to the black hole’s mass”

    I may not be the smartest of person but this article seems to contradict itself a little