in what area?

It gets more complicated in larger stars of course. Stars similar to our Earth run in similar patterns. Massive stars that create super giants at the end cycle don't follow this pattern exactly, they actually end up with fusion "bands". Kinda like an onion has layers, with different elemental fusions happening at various levels of its shell.

Red Dwarves, the smallest celestial objects that can be considered stars may not have this expansive property much at all. We don't actually know for sure. The smaller a star is, the longer it lives for. Red Dwarves are so small, and live for so long, that the lifetime of a Red Dwarf is presumed to be longer than the current age of the universe. We can theorize a bit as to what happens but we have absolutely no means to observe an end stage red dwarf. The universe, presumably, isn't old enough for that to have occurred yet.

So earthquakes generally don't and can't change the planet's orbit (the path it takes around the sun) for basically the reason you said. But an earthquake can change it's rotation (how it spins around on its axis).

Very very simply, a shift in tectonic plates, while it doesn't change the mass of the Earth can change the distribution of mass. How fast the Earth rotates, and the degree to which it "wobbles" as it does so, much like a top, is based not just on its mass, but the distribution of that mass.

Change the distribution, change the rotational axis.

>what's left behind is the now dead core of the star a white dwarf which slowly bleed out whatever energy remains thru radiance.

Unless of course the white dwarf's density is over the Chandrasekhar limit in which case what happens next is not slow at all but extremely fast and breathtakingly violent.

oh one of my favorite subjects! Stellar evolution! So, ok. A star, as you probably know, is just a great big fusion factory, where it's turning one element to another via fusion. Well, that fusion isn't taking place EVERYWHERE. It's really just occurring at the center. At the star's core.

So at the center of a star is the core. A giant fusion reaction where hydrogen is being converted into helium. And around the core of the star is the star's shell. Fusion is NOT taking place in the shell. It's just a ball of hydrogen that is very very very very hot. So hot it GLOWS. And the star has two oppositional forces on it. The gravity of all the mass pulling it IN and the heat of the star pushing it OUT. And those two forces largely meet an equilibrium.

But EVENTUALLY the star's core runs out of fusible "stuff". And when that is and what's left in that core really depends on the star's size. Small stars don't have enough gravitational mass and pressure to keep fusion going below the hydrogen>helium stage. Others might be able to fuse helium and beyond, building up cores of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen or iron (this stops at iron for more complex reasons). So bigger stars might have enough density to keep the fusion process going but EVENTUALLY the fuel runs out. There's nothing left in the core to fuse.

And remember, stars are a balance of gravity pulling in and heat pushing out. And when a core exhausts its fuel, it cools. And as it cools, that balance of forces causes the star core to contract. And through some, honestly, pretty damn complex processes, the core's collapse causes a LOT of radiation in the form of heat to eject from the core and into the shell.

And that radiation of heat causes fusion reactions to ignite in the shell. now the SHELL. The layer of the star around its core, now that's causing fusion reactions, which is giving off MORE heat. And when the star's shell starts to heat up, it expands.

And that's the growing. Eventually the start either sorta just..fizzles away into space, or through a various and varied processes ejects its shell in an electromagnetic pulse that results in what's called a planetary nebula. And in either event all that's left is the core. A white dwarf. A solid ball of "something". Helium, carbon, oxygen, possible silicon. Or iron. Some base element between helium and iron. Dense, compact, about the size of a planet. No more fusion is occurring. The white dwarf is all that remains, cooling down to the ambient temperature of the universe.

Our own star will PROBABLY end with a carbon core. A carbon white dwarf. A planet size diamond floating in the abyss. Glittering in the starlight, a tombstone for the human race.

Yeah intellectual property agreements are a lot more complex than real property agreements because real property agreements deal with something tangible. There's a "thing". A house. A car. A book. A piece of land. There's a tangible, identifiable, physical thing in place here. And those contracts are really "who gets to do things with the thing" and break down a lot easier.

Intellectual property gets way more complicated because you're involved in the sale of an idea.

>one co-owner, by themselves, isn't the legal entity that owns the property so they have no right to sell it.

But they can sell their ownership stake IN it, which can result in all sorts of weird and wacky legal shenanigans.

This is 100% governed by the contract of sale. There's 0 way to answer that question because all the things you're asking are all negotiable aspects of the contract. Without having read the specific contracts in question there's no way to answer it.

The only real answer that can be given is "it depends on how the contract was worded"

....so oxygen bonds to carbon and releases energy and co2. We took oxygen, added carbon that was stored in physical matter, and released it as co2. So oxygen was removed, bonded with carbon, and released back into the atmosphere this time with added carbon.

So the net amount of oxygen atoms remains the same but we've now added carbon.

The carbon is "stuff". We've taken away no net oxygen atoms and we've added carbon.

You understand that 1-1+1+2 is the same as 1+2 right? Am I assuming correctly that this is at least something you get? Do I need to slow down?

...what? were you under the impression clouds are just big fluffy white pieces of coal?

We have slightly more atmosphere than we used to. That's really the short answer to it. We added "stuff" without taking away "stuff". So we have more "stuff". A little bit more. Not a lot.

Which doesn't sound like much but little changes can have major impact to life that's evolved to a very narrow band of conditions.

Because corporations have a singular and sole objective which is "to make as much money as possible". That's it. That's their only purpose. This is doubly true for publicly traded companies who are obligated to their stock holders who only want their stock price up.

Privately held businesses might operate on the ethical standards of their owner but large corporations have very little practical, financial, or functional reasons to be good employers. They have every practical reason to be profitable businesses.

Which means, in the absence of some power telling them not to they will do anything and everything they can to increase profits. Google the Triangle Shirt Waste Factory fire for a good example of this.

So the functional idea is that if you value people then companies need to be told to NOT do things like..wage collude to keep wages artificially low, or skimp on safety measures, or hide money from taxes or, I dunno, avoid safety precautions on your trains carrying tons of toxic chemicals because it's cheaper, and who cares if some kids in a small town in Ohio get birth defects?

Some people care more that a bunch of women don't die horrifically in a factory fire, or children don't end up with cancer because a train spilled vinyl chloride in the town's water supply, than they do about a company making an extra billion

..wut?

Most people who are of the left wing liberal persuasion of "expand social safety nets, expand job and wage protection, expand safety regulations, expand protections for marginalized communities" are also the same people who want to get corporate money out of politics because it is those corporations who spend millions of dollars lobbying the government to not do those things because it's more profitable if the government doesn't.

People who believe that the government should be more protective of human interests are generally the same people who think the government should be less protective of corporate interests, so inherent in the idea of "expand the government" is "stop making government beholden to corporate interests that are trying to keep the government's expansion in check in order to make more money"