The distance from the center of the black hole to the event horizon varies with the mass of the black hole. If you want details, read Hawking. He knows a thing or two about those babies. And no, black holes are not all the same size.
The bit about equating elementary particles to black holes was something I hadn't come across before. It's an intriguing idea if it pans out. It'd be interesting to start a movement to ban micro black holes (a la DHMO) considering how extremely dangerous they are. ; )
The people who think it's a bad resource because anyone is free to mess it up have become more vocal recently, in my experience; I guess you could call that "out." Having no problem at all with it myself, I still wouldn't use it as a reference for a research paper or anything else that really requires accuracy. level_head makes a point of knowing what he's talking about, so I think testing4l was surprised that he used a potentially unreliable (albeit fairly reliable in practice) resource.
Who uses the term "black hole" as a substitute for "singularity of a black hole" in common speech? Sven is hardly trying to convey precise scientific information in a peer reviewed publication, making it rather harsh to hold him to standards of that level.
As near I can tell, the singularity would be the Kantian object, and "black hole" would refer to the collection of properties which actually can be meaningfully discussed outside of purely formal systems. But that is rather more nitpicky than one actually has to be in common speech.
It is harsh and exacting. I'm willing to accept that. I make a point of correcting people when they say "centrifugal force" in everyday speech.
The only reason it really bothers me is the next line about using that line to pick up "hot lady physicists". If you're going to do that, one would expect precision and exacting care in the phrasing. It seems kind of like using naive set theory in a discussion of paradoxes with a maths person.
But -- again -- that's my opinion from where I sit.
Sven did not say - or obviously from his response ever contemplate - that. An emo kid with no education what so ever in physics, working as an office bitch, with a sarcasm quotient which defies the ozone layer said that.
You're referring to the Schwarzschild radius which is different than the way I took that strip to mean.
It is true that the radius differs depending on mass, but referring to the "black hole" and intending the event horizon is just plain sloppy terminology. If you're going to discuss the black hole as a discrete thing, then one must discuss the singularity itself which is necessarily of infinitesimal volume -- the event horizon is merely a property, not the thing itself.
And so, with that in mind (and the implied evidence that I've taken some time to look into these things myself), I repeat my claim.
That you take the strip to mean something else than pretty much every other human on the planet does isn't anyone's problem but yours. The humorous abstract concept of a human being powered by a small black hole and thus being able to eat tremendous amounts of food works very well. Indeed, I fail to see why you have any kind of problem with it.
"Black hole" is a collection name to the entire, well, black hole. Not to the singularity alone; that is merely one part of a black hole. The event horizon is, indeed, a property of a black hole. As is its mass. As is its size, however one wishes to measure it (mass, radius, comic value etc.).