E=mc2 questions?

[Dywyddyr]

You say that a neutron star has a force of gravity that is so great it crushes the atoms!, does this not suggest that there is atoms to crush in the first place?

If there are atoms then the star isn't composed of neutronium.
Therefore it's not a neutron star.

This is something else that's common knowledge and freely available on Wikipedia - you know, the source you claim to understand.
The thing is NOT a neutron star UNTIL all the atoms have been "crushed".
Ergo a neutron star isn't composed of atoms.-

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If there are atoms then the star isn't composed of neutronium.
Therefore it's not a neutron star.

This is something else that's common knowledge and freely available on Wikipedia - you know, the source you claim to understand.
The thing is NOT a neutron star UNTIL all the atoms have been "crushed".
Ergo a neutron star isn't composed of atoms.-

are you saying that a Neutron stars gravity does not attract matter? and then this matter is not crushed by the force of the gravity of the Neutron star?

I seem to be missing the point of how gravity must not be a constant in a neutron star and will not continue to attract atoms through its entire process?

Therefore a Neutron star must contain atoms, or it would have no atoms to crush, that is what the other member stated that a neutron star crushes atoms, so they have to exist in the neutron star to be crushed?

 

[exchemist]

You say that a neutron star has a force of gravity that is so great it crushes the atoms!, does this not suggest that there is atoms to crush in the first place?

Yes there were , originally, atoms, before the star underwent its gravitational collapse. But there aren't any left by the time the collapse has taken place. All you have then is neutrons. It is by then a different state of matter, which no longer contains atoms.

Neutrons are not atoms, obviously.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Yes there were , originally, atoms, before the star underwent its gravitational collapse. But there aren't any left by the time the collapse has taken place. All you have then is neutrons. It is by then a different state of matter.

Ok I understand that, so how does the gravity of the neutron star not attract new atoms?

 

[Dywyddyr]

are you saying that a Neutron stars gravity does not attract matter?

Please learn to read.
I did not say.
I did not imply that.

Therefore a Neutron star must contain atoms, or it would have no atoms to crush

You really should have read my post before quoting and replying to it.

that is what the other member stated that a neutron star crushes atoms, so they have to exist in the neutron star to be crushed?

And you really should have read the post you're referring to.

One more time, slowly, for the hard of understanding among us:

There's a star. With atoms.
As it compresses it gets denser.
As it gets denser it reaches a stage where there are NO MORE ATOMS because those atoms have BEEN CRUSHED.
ONLY when the atoms are crushed is it called a neutron star.
Thus, neutron stars do not have atoms.

Ok I understand that, so how does the gravity of the neutron star not attract new atoms?

Who said it doesn't?
But any atoms that fall into a neutron become crushed - thus no atoms in a neutron star.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Please learn to read.
I did not say.
I did not imply that.


You really should have read my post before quoting and replying to it.


And you really should have read the post you're referring to.

One more time, slowly, for the hard of understanding among us:

There's a star. With atoms.
As it compresses it gets denser.
As it gets denser it reaches a stage where there are NO MORE ATOMS because those atoms have BEEN CRUSHED.
ONLY when the atoms are crushed is it called a neutron star.
Thus, neutron stars do not have atoms.


Who said it doesn't?
But any atoms that fall into a neutron become crushed - thus no atoms in a neutron star.

if there are atoms falling into the star that are crushed, then the star contains crushed atoms, and atoms before they are crushed, so to say a Neutron star has no atoms is false in my opinion when you have clearly stated that the atoms are crushed and gravity will still attract mass/atoms.
Atoms enter the neutron star at a constant to the gravity, then are crushed i presume in the center of the star where it is at it densest point compared to surface layers with no ability to crush anything?

 

[Dywyddyr]

if there are atoms falling into the star that are crushed, then the star contains crushed atoms

If atoms are crushed they are, as has been pointed, no longer atoms. There are no electrons and no protons.

so to say a Neutron star has no atoms is false in my opinion

What you're failing to understand is that your uninformed uneducated opinion doesn't count.

when you have clearly stated that the atoms are crushed and gravity will still attract mass/atoms

When the atoms are crushed they are no longer atoms - as I ALSO clearly stated.
And any atoms that are attracted will be crushed, thus becoming NOT ATOMS.

Atoms enter the neutron star at a constant to the gravity

Meaningless.

then are crushed i presume in the center of the star where it is at it densest point compared to surface layers with no ability to crush anything?

Why "presume"?
Aren't you the guy who PERSISTENTLY claims to understand science?
Aren't you the guy who PERSISTENTLY claims to know what you're talking about?
You presumption is incorrect.
A neutron star is a neutron star BECAUSE it is composed entirely of neutrons.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If atoms are crushed they are, as has been pointed, no longer atoms. There are no electrons and no protons.


What you're failing to understand is that your uninformed uneducated opinion doesn't count.


When the atoms are crushed they are no longer atoms - as I ALSO clearly stated.
And any atoms that are attracted will be crushed, thus becoming NOT ATOMS.


Meaningless.


Why "presume"?
Aren't you the guy who PERSISTENTLY claims to understand science?
Aren't you the guy who PERSISTENTLY claims to know what you're talking about?
You presumption is incorrect.
A neutron star is a neutron star BECAUSE it is composed entirely of neutrons.

The Neutron star may be made of only entirely Neutrons, but you miss the point that at any given time the gravity still attracts atoms, and before they are crushed they are still atoms, are you saying that has soon as an atom enters the outer body of the Neutron star at that very instance it is crushed?

or are you actually saying that an atom has a low life expectancy inside a neutron star?

In either instant at any given time I see the Neutron star contains some atoms before they are crushed making the statement of a Neutron star is just neutrons to be untrue?

 

[Dywyddyr]

or are you actually saying that an atom has a low life expectancy inside a neutron star?

An atom has a ZERO "life expectancy".

In either instant at any given time I see the Neutron star contains some atoms before they are crushed

What YOU see is unsupported bollocks.

making the statement of a Neutron star is just neutrons to be untrue?

Has it ever occurred to you to CHECK what the facts are and what science says BEFORE making one of your typical bullsh*t statements?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

An atom has a ZERO "life expectancy".


What YOU see is unsupported bollocks.


Has it ever occurred to you to CHECK what the facts are and what science says BEFORE making one of your typical bullsh*t statements?

I am checking the facts in this thread,

An atom has zero life expectancy, so now you are saying that the atom is not crushed in the Neutron star?


How much time passes by from when the atom enters the Neutron star to the stage of crushed?

 

[Dywyddyr]

An atom has zero life expectancy, so now you are saying that the atom is not crushed in the Neutron star?

WTF are you reading?
Atoms are crushed.

How much time passes by from when the atom enters the Neutron star to the stage of crushed?

For a neutron star to be formed there must be a specific mass/ radius ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff_equation.
Ergo any atom entering a neutron star is INSIDE that radius - which means that as soon as it hits that radius it WILL BE CRUSHED.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

WTF are you reading?
Atoms are crushed.


For a neutron star to be formed there must be a specific mass/ radius ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff_equation.
Ergo any atom entering a neutron star is INSIDE that radius - which means that as soon as it hits that radius it WILL BE CRUSHED.

That is what I asked you, is it crushed has soon as it enters, and if the answer is yes, then ok I agree that atoms do not exist inside a Neutron star for a brief period of time before being crushed.
In view of the neutron star it still does not make any difference to what I asked about gravity, the neutron star still attracts atoms which it should because it still contains one of the attracting energies, whilst the atoms contain multiple attracts to each other.
An electron is attracted to a proton and vice versus, therefore in a singular atom, the attraction must also be to other atoms electrons and protons. Atoms are attracted to atoms?

 

[Dywyddyr]

That is what I asked you, is it crushed has soon as it enters, and if the answer is yes, then ok I agree that atoms do not exist inside a Neutron star for a brief period of time before being crushed.

I've told you - yes it's crushed as soon as it passes that radius.

In view of the neutron star it still does not make any difference to what I asked about gravity, the neutron star still attracts atoms which it should because it still contains one of the attracting energies, whilst the atoms contain multiple attracts to each other.

I have no f*cking idea what you're trying to say here.
A neutron star attracts things because of its gravity - the same as ANY OTHER OBJECT with mass.

An electron is attracted to a proton and vice versus, therefore in a singular atom, the attraction must also be to other atoms electrons and protons.

You have been informed, several times, that electron-proton attraction is not gravity.

Atoms are attracted to atoms?

It depends.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I've told you - yes it's crushed as soon as it passes that radius.


I have no f*cking idea what you're trying to say here.
A neutron star attracts things because of its gravity - the same as ANY OTHER OBJECT with mass.


You have been informed, several times, that electron-proton attraction is not gravity.


It depends.

You have been told several times by me that atoms by the laws of the Physics have to obey the laws of attraction, you are trying to infer that if i have two atoms 1cm apart, that the electron from the atom on the left is not attracted to the proton of the atom on the right.

If I have ten atoms on the left, then the strength of attract is greater than the singular on the right, however the electron attracting the right proton, and the protons attracting the right electron have an equilibrium of attract respectively .

I miss the part how this is not related to gravity when it is the obvious forces of attraction in the Universe?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You have been told several times by me that atoms by the laws of the Physics have to obey the laws of attraction

Correct.
I have been told several times.
But you're talking crap, so I didn't take any notice.
As was pointed out by AlexG in post #223 and Exchemist in post #229 - at the scale of protons and electrons the forces of attraction are electrostatic, gravity doesn't count.

you are trying to infer that if i have two atoms 1cm apart, that the electron from the atom on the left is not attracted to the proton of the atom on the right.

See above.
If the atoms have a like charge they'll repel.

I miss the part how this is not related to gravity when it is the obvious forces of attraction in the Universe?

Because
A) you're extrapolating wildly, and
B) you're clueless with regard to actual science.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Correct.
I have been told several times.
But you're talking crap, so I didn't take any notice.
As was pointed out by AlexG in post #223 and Exchemist in post #229 - at the scale of protons and electrons the forces of attraction are electrostatic, gravity doesn't count.


See above.
If the atoms have a like charge they'll repel.


Because
A) you're extrapolating wildly, and
B) you're clueless with regard to actual science.

if the atoms have a like charge they repel, would you mean Hydrogen and helium by any chance?

Electrostatic connection that becomes a dense electrostatic connection called gravity.

I am doing nothing wildly, this is your science what you already know, and that is why I do not get why you do not get your own science context.

Imagine I have a void and we add two singular atoms, eventually those atoms will connect and find each other by attraction, the - and the plus is an equal to the - and plus of other atoms, and only by entropy does this change. Add more energy then we have repel, take away energy we have more attract, it is the barebones obvious that for some reason science ignores?

 

[Russ_Watters]

T-C, instead of trying to goalpost shift your wrong claim (everything is made of atoms) far enough to make you right about *something*, you should have just learned it and ended it there. Your incessant desire to argue against learning is the reason why you know so shockingly little.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Electrostatic connection that becomes a dense electrostatic connection called gravity.

FFS.
Gravity is NOT electrostatic.

I am doing nothing wildly, this is your science what you already know, and that is why I do not get why you do not get your own science context.

Actually I do "get my own science context".
But I don't have a clue as to why you continue to misinterpret it. [1]

Imagine I have a void and we add two singular atoms, eventually those atoms will connect and find each other by attraction, the - and the plus is an equal to the - and plus of other atoms, and only by entropy does this change.

No.

Add more energy then we have repel, take away energy we have more attract, it is the barebones obvious that for some reason science ignores?

Also wrong.

1 Actually I do have a clue - it's because you're a deluded uneducated thick as f*ck clown who doesn't learn anything.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Electrostatic connection that becomes a dense electrostatic connection called gravity.

I am doing nothing wildly....

You say after a wildly wrong claim, lol.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

T-C, instead of trying to goalpost shift your wrong claim (everything is made of atoms) far enough to make you right about *something*, you should have just learned it and ended it there. Your incessant desire to argue against learning is the reason why you know so shockingly little.

if you want me to accept anything you have to provide 100% facts, i will leave no stone unturned in learning anything, and if I see something or think some thing , I will ask all the why's, if the whys are not answered then I will insist until i do get an answer.