this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1637 points (98.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
5923 readers
4204 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Red dwarfs are not failed stars. They are the lowest mass objects capable of nuclear fusion. Brown dwarfs are failed stars. Brown dwarfs officially start at 13 Jupiter masses, & have a maximum mass of 75 Jupiter's. Beyond that mass, fusion starts & the object is officially a star.
Brown dwarfs are capable of fusion of deuterium at an extremely low power output. Their inability to conduct more substantial fusion involving hydrogen-1 is what sets them apart from red dwarfs.
Well failed star is an erroneous term it just means any star that is not bright enough and hot enough that any world around it could sustain life (at least carbon-based as we know it to be).
Any world close enough to have liquid water would be so close as to be irradiated beyond anything we consider to be survivable and probably tidily locked to boot.
It's still a star in the real sense of the term just quite dim and cool.
No, it means that it failed to become a star by initiating stellar fusion reactions. This isn't some science fiction term. Red dwarfs are stars, and brown dwarfs are not.