Maybe chill with the ableism. You can call a removed a removed without bringing disability into it.

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 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.

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.

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.

I disagree. It is more than just a nitpick. Saying black holes suck things in implies that they are doing something different than any other mass. Which they are not. Would you say a star sucks in stuff around it? Or a planet? Or moon? No. That sounds absurd. It makes it sound like blackholes are doing something different to everything else - which is miss-leading at best. They way things are described matter as it paints a very different picture to the layman.