Mass question

[cdub]

Actually, I'm not even sure this is a mass question or just a dumb question.<br /><br />To the best of your knowledge how much water would the singularity of a SMBH such as Sag A displace? A singularity worth or would the extreme density of these objects change the amount of water it displaces?

 

[cdub]

Sorry by the way, I meant to put this in the Ask an astronomer section.

 

[richalex]

I am going to shoot from the hip and say that it would displace the amount of water equivalent to its mass. I'm too lazy right now to look up the mass of the particular SMBH you named.

 

[billslugg]

A woodchuck would chuck. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Displacing water requires volume and a singularity is said to be an infinitely dense point with zero volume. It would not displace any water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[origin]

Yes I agree with derekmcd. This is a really odd question. <br /><br />Let me just ask, is this really your question?<br /><i>If you were to place a black hole that is made of millions of solar masses in water how much water would it displace?</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cdub]

Thank you Derek, very helpful. That was what I was thinking, but my background in physics is woefully inadequate, so I was wondering if density mattered in relation to water displacement. The singularity of a SMBH was the most dense object I could think of.<br /><br />@Origin. <br /><br />No need to change my question. I meant exactly what I said. If it's too odd you are more than welcome not to answer it... I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[origin]

Didn't mean to offend you - the thought of a black hole in water just sounded odd to me.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"I'm not even sure this is a mass question or just a dumb question."</font><br /><br />Maybe it's a dumb-mass question.<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br />Sorry.<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cdub]

@origin None taken. I was just surprised after Billslugg's response that someone would choose to be smug rather than helpful to a politely asked question with such a smart crowd.<br /><br />@cent Thanks for the laugh (seriously)!<br />Derek provided me with exactly what I was looking for so, hopefully you understand what I meant now.

 

[derekmcd]

If you know the weight and volume of the object, you can measure its density. Archimedes' "Eureka" statement was for figuring out this principle. Knowing an objects weight, you can figure out it's volume by displacing water and measuring how much it rises.<br /><br />So... your question was a relevant one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[billslugg]

My apologies. It was 3 in the morning and I was feeling a bit piqued.<br /><br />As for your question, it will displace an infinite amount of water. Everything will get sucked into it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

I hope I'm not being politically incorrect, I also thought it was an odd question. But it wasn't a dumb question, or a bad question. It was just an odd but entertaining question. And it also got me to thinking, all laws that we have break down in the singularity, and it was interesting to realize that Archimedes principle breaks down because a singularity lacks volume. Personally, the only thing that left a VERY SLIGHT bad taste, was calling another poster "smug." But maybe if it was my question that was called odd, maybe I would feel different.

 

[cdub]

@Bill No problem. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Like I said I was just a little surprised, and we all get cranky... I will have thicker skin next time <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br />@Rob I was refering to the "woodchuck" comment when I said I was surprised at someone being smug. "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood (ie a silly and irrelevant question)?" I'm an astronomy newbie, so I was just hoping the board members wouldn't laugh me off the forum just for asking.<br /><br /> There is, of course, no need to dwell on this you've been very helpful. I'm just grateful to have an answer even if it seems you all do not agree (none vs infinite vs = to its mass), but I believe that may be due to each of you taking it in a different context.<br /><br />To be honest, I really am not sure what made me think of this question.

 

[MeteorWayne]

"To be honest, I really am not sure what made me think of this question."<br /><br />Probably curiousity. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Welcome to Space.com!<br /><br />Maybe if you hang around for a while, you will figure out how to phrase the question you wanted to ask in a clearer way.<br />Look forward to it.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>