[–] 37 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Yes, black holes absolutely have mass. That's really all they have.

And yes, black holes and stars can attract each other by gravity. Our galaxy has a fuckoff massive black hole at the center, and all the stars in the galaxy including our sun orbit that black hole.

There are also cases of black holes attracting each other and merging. One of these is the reason we know gravitational waves are possible.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago*

    Its mass can be measured just like any other object. We can't see a black hole, but we can see things around it and how they are affected, and using physics determine what mass would be needed. If the Sun magically became a black hole, it would have the same mass and the planets would orbit the same. So we could measure how they go around it and come up with the mass at the center.

    One way (I believe) to measure a black hole indirectly is to see how it bends light images from things behind it. Same thing, we can calculate how much mass would be needed to bend that image's light path.

    The second question, a star can pull a black hole, it's just a matter of the two masses. Usually you'll find the black hole is much larger, but in theory a small black hole could orbit a large star.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Not in a perpetual motion sense, no. Stars feed off their own energy in the sense that they're converting their gravitational energy into heat and pressure, but that process will eventually use up all their fuel.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    It's not clear what you mean by "feed off" exactly.

    Any radiation a star or black hole emits must come from the energy density inside it. For stars, the source of that energy is fusion in its core, and that energy is emitted as thermal radiation in the photosphere. Black holes are thought to emit Hawking radiation near the event horizon, though at much lower intensity than the light coming from stars.

    Does that answer your question?

  • source
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    There isn't really a thing as sustainable levels.

    If we keep pumping CO2 into the air, thing will keep getting worse, just at a slower rate.

    Even if we completely stopped CO2 today, it will still keep getting worse, as the CO2 we already added acts like a blanket, warming up the globe year by year

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Intelligence in the same way we call LLMs AI?

    Feels like we were more intelligent we would work together to survive and have something beautiful together but instead it is just greed and fuck you all around.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Nonono, we should take a few of them and encase their heads in resin for eternity. Not because that's good for the environment, but to serve a warning for the next thousand generations that some things come at too high a cost. (and also so that we can wave at them, like this)

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    We can't stop using them yet (modern medicine needs them). But we could virtually eliminate burning them in short order. Plummeting emissions to sustainable levels within 10-20 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Jevons Paradox, this would just lead to further CO2 emissions, as well as compounding that on top of adding further particulates into the atmosphere that would fall out and end up in soil and groundwater with unknown consequences.

    If people didn’t suck at everything then it could do some triage, but if people didn’t suck at everything we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place.

  • source
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›