5 ms·

Obviously, nothing can ‘hit’ a black hole: anything that does just gets absorbed by it as it falls in. However, more broadly speaking, the angular momentum is

by qubex 6y ago

Obviously, nothing can ‘hit’ a black hole: anything that does just gets absorbed by it as it falls in. However, more broadly speaking, the angular momentum is conserved, so the result would be more or less the same. However, given the enormous, ridiculous difference of relative masses (and therefore angular momentum) in the case of black holes and some gas particles, I think my initial point stands.

whatshisface 6y ago
The black hole would interact with many gas particles, not just one. How many would be reasonable? Well, Jupiter is a gas giant and it had to form somehow. Yes, conservation of momentum is the right way to think about that.
- qubex 6y ago
  > conservation of momentum is the right way to think about that So you’re saying you’d expect a body that were captured at an arbitrary angle to end up orbiting in the same ecliptic as the planets roughly around the sun’s equator?
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    If the body was there from the start it would obey the same rules as all of the dust that was there from the start.
jayd16 6y ago
>anything that does just gets absorbed by it as it falls in. I don't think this is true. Plenty of (almost everything) things would interact with the black hole's gravitation but not be close enough fall in.
- qubex 6y ago
  You have an object the mass of a gas giant. Planets by definition sweep their local neighbourhood clear of objects. So the black hole is going to carve out an area that is largely devoid of other bodies, and particularly in the context of a gaseous planetary nebula, it’s going to swallow stuff. This will lead to a roughly spherical void around it, and a gravitational bias towards the centre of mass of the planetary nebula (i.e. radially inwards towards the sun).
  - radford-neal 6y ago
    "Planets by definition sweep their local neighbourhood clear of objects" What makes you think that a black hole orbiting the sun is a "planet" by the definition you're using? More generally, you can't prove things about the physical world just by citing somebody's arbitrary definition of a word.

by qubex 6y ago

whatshisface 6y ago

The black hole would interact with many gas particles, not just one. How many would be reasonable? Well, Jupiter is a gas giant and it had to form somehow. Yes, conservation of momentum is the right way to think about that.

qubex 6y ago
> conservation of momentum is the right way to think about that So you’re saying you’d expect a body that were captured at an arbitrary angle to end up orbiting in the same ecliptic as the planets roughly around the sun’s equator?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  If the body was there from the start it would obey the same rules as all of the dust that was there from the start.

jayd16 6y ago

>anything that does just gets absorbed by it as it falls in. I don't think this is true. Plenty of (almost everything) things would interact with the black hole's gravitation but not be close enough fall in.

qubex 6y ago
You have an object the mass of a gas giant. Planets by definition sweep their local neighbourhood clear of objects. So the black hole is going to carve out an area that is largely devoid of other bodies, and particularly in the context of a gaseous planetary nebula, it’s going to swallow stuff. This will lead to a roughly spherical void around it, and a gravitational bias towards the centre of mass of the planetary nebula (i.e. radially inwards towards the sun).
- radford-neal 6y ago
  "Planets by definition sweep their local neighbourhood clear of objects" What makes you think that a black hole orbiting the sun is a "planet" by the definition you're using? More generally, you can't prove things about the physical world just by citing somebody's arbitrary definition of a word.