Anonymous at Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:51:34 UTC No. 16494752

>>16494664
Confront the star and demand to see its supernova loicense.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 05:28:33 UTC No. 16495908

if the star is large enough to form a black hole during collapse, and during the collapse the matter is compressed closer and closer to the core and the force of gravity is stronger how can any part of the star explode away? It seems the curvature of space would be so great that it would at least be pulled back in.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 15:34:18 UTC No. 16496227

>>16495908
it doesn't. a black hole is the result of there not being enough of a recoil against the neutron star and it forms an accretion zone, or there's not enough neutrinos to drive the shockwave and it stalls.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:11:39 UTC No. 16496998

>>16494664
So I have nothing to support any claim that says OPicrel is wrong,
but I do have some questions that might help explain why my mind is having trouble intuitively understanding it.

1.
>We can use spectral analysis to determine the molecular composition of stars by looking at the radiation wavelengths it is emitting.
I mean, it sounds reasonable, and I don't have a better suggestion atm, but is there a reason that this method isn't subjected to data corruption by the RGB pixel effect?
Like, if you were to look at a tv that was just a monotone violet color covering the entire screen,
one might (understandably) say there is either a large purple light flooding the screen,
or slightly more accurately claim there are lots of individual purple lights responsible for the purple picture.

But, as if by magic, the purple color we see is apparently the result of lots of individual pixels, where each pixel is made up of individual sub pixels of Red, Green, and Blue. And when you observe these pixels from a distance far enough, even just a few inches or feet, the individual sub pixels RGB colors are lost by the time they reach our eyes.
So why do stars billions of lightyears away from us not suffer from this data corruption that we can witness already happening on extremely smaller scales?

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:12:44 UTC No. 16496999

>>16496998
2.
>If these stars are undergoing some process that produces extreme conditions that aren't subject to typical models we can make sense of on urf; why do we try to '-anthropomorphize-' them, in such a fashion so that they easily explain how they further confirm our models?
So for the record, I actually don't necessarily 'disagree" with OP's pic being an objectively correct model. And I know they even say that stars are a bit different from planets, because of their extreme conditions, so our typical thinking of how gas/solid/liquids work isn't really applicable, because they're in a 'plasma form'. And maybe this is due to my lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject, but what is their reasoning for seeming to have such a bold amount of information regarding what exactly is going on beyond the sun's surface, and apparently having enough confidence to attach rather precise numbers to those claims?

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:17:53 UTC No. 16497000

Gravitational collapse into a singularity never made sense. You squash enough particles together and the pressure to escape just increases, basic uncertainty principle.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:27:43 UTC No. 16497002

>>16497000
except that only leads to miniscule hawking radiation

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:02:25 UTC No. 16497106

>>16497000
>ou squash enough particles together and the pressure to escape just increases
If there's a big house party popping off down the street, there will be an increased interest for people to go over and check out what's going on. But, because there can only be so many people inside a given area, this causes some people to step out and have a smoke in the backyard, where it's not as overly crowded, unlike the basement where it's a packed crowd of bodies having a rave.

I know that's a silly analogy to try and justify why it 'makes sense', but it's a science topic I'm willing to accept.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:13:45 UTC No. 16497145

>>16494664
>why hasn't anyone stopped this?
>The star has to go on radiating and radiating and contracting and contracting until, I suppose, it gets down to a few km radius, when gravity becomes strong enough to hold in the radiation, and the star can at last find peace. ... I think there should be a law of Nature to prevent a star from behaving in this absurd way. t. Arthur Eddington

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 00:23:38 UTC No. 16498721

>>16494664
>star has same amount of mass
>doesnt implode normally
>all of a sudden starts imploding due to “gravity”
people actually believe this?

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 01:32:04 UTC No. 16498768

>>16498721
>I dont believe in gravity.
GTFO out of /sci/.
Go back to /r9k/ and post about "manifesting a mommy GF" or whatever retard shit you do.

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:28:18 UTC No. 16499222

>>16498721
>doesn't implode normally
i mean, if you wanna be pedantic, it's still imploding. it's just that the implosion is fighting against the expansion caused by nucleosynthesis.