It depends what you mean by big. Are you talking mass or volume?
black holes
Submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/d28f8196-76d6-4606-b884-40b46efd424f.jpeg
Comments
henfredemars@infosec.pub 1 year ago
nulluser@programming.dev 1 year ago
I came to ask something similar, but far less eloquent. So, if you don’t mind, I’m just going to piggyback on your comment.
cynar@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There are 2 parts. At the center is the singularity. Theoretically, this is an infinitely small point of infinite density. This has no volume. Around this is the event horizon. This has volume, and is what we refer to as a black hole. Theoretically, you could have a black hole without a singularity, you just need an area dense enough that light can’t escape.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
If I remember correctly supermassive black holes do consume space and can be quite large. They can also be much less dense than neutron stars, let alone stellar black holes.
Wooki@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Beyond the event horizon is just insane math and theory
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 year ago
30 billion times more maasive
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 year ago
science.nasa.gov/universe/black-holes
66 Billion
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I stand corrected
jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I’ve heard that the greater the mass of the black hole, the lesser the density. So I’m assuming this black hole isn’t dense at all. I still don’t understand it.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Right. That’s why the term massive is preferred over any other reference to size. A black hole more massive than the sun would appear far smaller at it’s core.
littlebluespark@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Hey, ya can’t spell “m’ackshually” without “a smack” upside the head, eh?
Lucien@hexbear.net 1 year ago
our our
lowleveldata@programming.dev 1 year ago
And it still can’t compete with your mama
Until we meet again