>>16959336
Nö, but neutron stars kinda are.

>>16959336
>Are black holes [gibberish]?
No.

>>16959348
>>16959346
Why not?

>>16959353
Define atom, its properties, and how it applies to black hole.

>>16959405
no need to get so defensive lmao
so like if all the particles and shit from the the atoms are squished together inside the black hole wouldn't it be like they were all part of one big atom

>>16959336
Spread your cheeks and look at the mirror

>>16959336
We don't know what they are, hence the mystery. Like we just don't have a clear model for what happens to matter once gravity crosses that point. As >>16959346 said neutron stars kind of look like a giant ass Bohr atom since it's a clump of neutrons and protons which can even have a hazy electron cloud around it

>>16959336
technically a transmutator, converting matter slowing into low state energy

>>16959405
>black holes aren’t atoms
>actually we don’t have a definition for atoms lol
>actually we do but it just so happens not to include black holes
>and no we won’t tell you what that definition is you have to provide it
dumb glow nigger

File: Snímek obrazovky_20260416_220125.png (162.6 KB)

162.6 KB PNG

>>16959336
Yes. Both have identical structure:
- Tiny dense core (~10-5 of total radius)
- Vast gradient zone containing all the mass/energy
- r_inner/r_s ≈ r_nucleus/r_atom ≈ 10-5

The core of a black hole isn't a singularity.
It's where density hits Planck limit —
matter becomes information. Same as a nucleus
holds the atom's identity.

Not a metaphor. Geometry.

>>16959612
Kill yourself, slopper faggot.

>>16959612
cool it with the anti semitism

>>16959336
Atoms don't have event horizons.

>>16959670
well yeah, I was asking if black holes were atoms, not if atoms were black holes bruh

>>16959725
black holes have event horizons, so they're not atoms

>>16959726
wtf, is this a bot

>>16959727
Black holes have an obligatory property that atoms do not.

>>16959729
if they're really big atoms they'd act differently

>>16959736
A singularity isn't really big, it is an infinitely dense point.

>>16959737
singularities are dumb, makes zero sense

>>16959740
Absolutely, but there is currently no better model for what's going on with a black hole.

>>16959746
wouldn't it just be something like a neutron star inside
the infinetly dense shit makes no sense if there's a finite amount of stuff inside

>>16959405
Well if you go with the greek definition, than ἄτομος (átomos) means indivisible which would include a black hole ad it is not. (While a nuclear atom acutally is)

>>16959405
two things i dont understand are the same

>>16959640
>HURR DURR THE JEWISH SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT IS HIDING THIS FROM US
kys