A) Assumed both stars formed at the same time. You have retracted this assumption. But you neglected to THINK, which leads to B:
Stop lying. I have retracted nothing. Saying "the chance they aren't the same age is very very small" is not a retraction, it is a summary of the most likely actual situation.
I have "retracted" nothing.
B) Assumed both stars are at the same stage of their stellar evolutions (which is very similar to the first assumption but not exactly the same)
I have done nothing of the sort. If they start as different sizes by any substantial margin, they can NOT be at the same stage in stellar evolution. If they are different initial sizes by any substantial amount, and they are at the same stage of evolution, they can not be the same age. We've discussed already how that is incredibly unlikely.
A red giant is pretty big - bigger than a neutron star - but one is further along in its stellar evolution - can you guess which one?
Out of context of the original question. True on its own, but not in context of the question that I was answering, and you demonstrate that you know that by your original act of stalking in this thread.
The neutron star is the REMAINS of a large star, and is the one farther along. The original question started with a large and a small star, both *uncollapsed.* Your question is, as you are so prone to, OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.
Stop trying to mislead the reader by changing the scope of the question.
This scenario is misleading on your part, the original question said:
If a Big star is orbiting a smaller star and the smaller starts to expand and then starts to collapse and eventually forms a Black hole with the Bigger Star still orbiting it.
The smaller star is NOT a neutron star in the original question, and that's all there is to it, because it hasn't, at the start of the question, "expand"ed, yet, etc.
So, in the ORIGINAL QUESTION, which you have, as is your want, ignored, the situation can NOT be a neutron star at the start of the question.
At the start of the question, we start with a large star and a small star, and the question askes about the SMALL star expanding and collapsing, BEFORE the large star. This is incredibly unlikely. Not impossible (nor have I said that it was) but incredibly unlikely.
Not, I'm sure, given the size of the universe, impossible, but very, very unlikely. One of the stars would have to have been captured in order for that to happen.
If such happened, then the two stars would not be the same age, or we would still see a "usual" situation. That's why this is so unlikely, we would need different population stars, or close to it, to create such an unusual situation.
A neutron star in close binary with a red giant.. it will be gaining mass at the expense of the red giant.. possibly enough mass to increase the density of the neutron star to beyond the swartzchild limit.
Irrelevant to the original question asked in this thread.
Possible, indeed, but irrelevant to the question asked in this thread.
Thank you for A) Making assumptions. B) Attacking me. C) Making more assumptions, and finally D) Making this all possible.
Attack away...
