Skip to main content
Astronomy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • $\begingroup$ The properties of the accretion flow are more a function of the environment than that of the compact object. So I think you're not comparing apples and apples here. $\endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    Commented Jan 19, 2018 at 5:17
  • $\begingroup$ @AtmosphericPrisonEscape: However, when there is a compact object present the infalling matter strikes the surface and results in intense bursts of radiation that can exceed the Eddington limit. Whereas with an event horizon the radiation released is well below the Eddington limit because much of that energy is being sucked into a black hole. $\endgroup$
    – SavedbyZer0
    Commented Jan 19, 2018 at 6:55
  • $\begingroup$ You should be right with that. I think the argument for the 'central engine' of a quasar to be a black hole were something something relativity. I'll look it up later if I have time. Else you can google for the central engine, that's the keyword in that field. $\endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    Commented Jan 19, 2018 at 12:58