a neutron start isnt bigger than a foxglove you know?

the 'table spoon' scenario is used so for perspective purposes. many neutron stars are about the size of a city but this scenario is saying that 'one table spoons' worth' of that city-sized star weighs as much as mt. everest.

any neutron star that is bigger than a table spoon would instantly turn into a black hole which is so small you couldn't even see it with your eyes (lets just imagine there is no photon attraction)

you don't understand the scenario, friend. it's saying that if you had an average neutron star, so again, a city-sized star, and took a small chunk of it the size of a table spoon, then the size of that table spoon chunk would weigh as much as everest.

i think you don't know enough facts
a pure neutron start could never be bigger than a tablespoon, never
no atom could stand that pressure

most neutron stars are the size of a city. this is a fact.

'A typical neutron star has a mass between 1.35 and about 2.0 solar masses[1][2], with a corresponding radius of about 12 km'

taken straight from the second paragraph of wiki-shitting-pedia.

i once changed that the state of new york was invented because there were two occasions where people found the words YORK, painted with shit, it stayed for 4 days

everyone can fuck up wikipedia and try to proof things with it

i guess 'everyone' can tell scientists working for the BBC and Discovery channel to say false information just to troll everybody too, right?

fuck, star* again

Also false, if a neutron star collapses it becomes a black hole, and he is right that it would weigh similar to the weight of Mt. Everest. BUT how on earth is this on the front page???? no fucking idea

not every collapsed start becomes a black hole, btw black holes would gain the mass of the milky way in about 0.25 seconds

I said if a neutron star collapses it will become a black hole, if a massive star goes supernova then the core will collapse and become a neutron star, but if that collapses then it will become a black hole and not all black holes are the same. Btw you do realize that there is a super massive black hole at the center of the milky way so saying a regular sized black hole has the same amount of mass at the milky way makes no sense

Actually, there is no way to prove there is a black hole at the center of the milky way. Scientists predict that there is a black hole as other observable galaxies have what appear to be black holes at their center, but since scientists can't look through all the other solar systems between us and the center, there is, and may never be for some time, proof of any black hole

Have we seen the black hole at the center of our galaxy, no, but through observation and physics scientists can accurately predict that there is a super massive black hole at the center of out and most galaxies. And there are ways to prove black holes exist, one is through physics, and two is threw observation aka look at the way light bends around it which has been done many many many times

Those are valid point, but as you stated yourself, scientists can only PREDICT what lies at the center of our galaxy

read twice: GAIN the mass, im not talking about the mass it will end up with
the increase is insanely fast in the beginning, slows down a lot and then gradually increases again ( increase of increase, f''(x) lol )

Ah didn't see the word gain lol my bad. But yeah you're correct on that aspect but a neutron star is city sized and the reason for that is, is because it is made up mostly of neutrons (couple electrons and protons thrown in here and there) but the reason its stable is due the a quantum physics principle known as neutron pressure. Same way a white dwarf stays stable except that is kept stable with electron pressure, not neutron stable