21–30 of 79 posts
>black hole – 33 times size of sun >black hole 33 times more massive than the sun What a confusing article. Its 33 times the mass of the sun
It's actually correct. The radius/diameter of a black hole is proportional to its mass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that?
because of the image’s inaccuracy, masqueraded as something one of our telescopes could visualize, but instead is a contrived make-work programme
It reminds me of a hilarious article Josh barrow wrote about the SV bank run. He uses AI article art for a bank run, which ended up as 6 fingered joggers along the bank of a river.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually correct. The radius/diameter of a black hole is proportional to its mass.
Yes, but the size is not proportional to the suns mass, hence the error. size=/=mass
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you think the AI image model gets the data for what artist's impressions of astronomic phenomena should look like? From all the artists who painted these in the past.
Including the ones that did it for self expression for free instead of an inaccurate visualization at the top of every space related article Just like they can do after that niche job goes poof
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't know how supermassive blackholes form. It's a bit of a mystery.
That doesn't matter, you are toying with semantics. If astronomers say stellar black hole, they don't mean supermassive black holes at galactic centers. Even if Sagittarius A* was initially a stellar black hole, its more now.
The headline confused me as well: 33 solar masses (not sizes) seems tiny to me, I was sure we knew of bigger ones
>black hole – 33 times size of sun >black hole 33 times more massive than the sun What a confusing article. Its 33 times the mass of the sun
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't matter, you are toying with semantics. If astronomers say stellar black hole, they don't mean supermassive black holes at galactic centers. Even if Sagittarius A* was initially a stellar black hole, its more now.
I hadn't heard of the distinction stellar or non-stellar black hole before. It rather sounds like semantics to me to say this is one type of black hole and not another when it's physically the same thing and we don't know how it formed to begin with The headline confused me as well: 33 solar masses (not sizes) seems tiny to me, I was sure we knew of bigger ones