|
monmarfori
|
 |
« on: March 27, 2009, 02:47:03 AM » |
|
the star. called Cha 110913-773444 is the smallest brown dwarf
i think in the constellation Chamaeleon.
heres a picture of Cha 110913-773444.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
monmarfori
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2009, 02:47:47 AM » |
|
between the sun and jupiter.
in the scale
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Naru523
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2009, 05:27:07 PM » |
|
Wow I thought Wolf597 or something like that was the smallest  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 07:41:40 PM by Naru523 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chaotic Cow
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2009, 06:19:04 PM » |
|
Wow thats like 1 and the half jupiters.
Anyone know about the star made of Diamond or something?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
monmarfori
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2009, 04:52:52 PM » |
|
how many planets on that star
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Naru523
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2009, 11:09:12 PM » |
|
None...It only have a protoplanetary disk
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike
Posts: 11
I cant always say its going to be better tomorrow
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2009, 03:09:19 PM » |
|
I bet you fifty bucks there's a star the size of the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2009, 10:26:12 PM » |
|
Stars can't be the size of the moon. Then the pressure and temperature in the core is too small to be able to fusion, and then it simply isn't a star.  But wow, I'm very surprised that a star can be so small, only a little bit larger than Jupiter. Ofc the mass of it should be many times bigger, since there are planets 4-5 times bigger than Jupiter in other solar systems (I think). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MonkeyDLuffy
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2009, 10:43:08 PM » |
|
The largest one is TreS-3. It is doubled the size of Jupiter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike
Posts: 11
I cant always say its going to be better tomorrow
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2009, 11:41:36 AM » |
|
Stars can't be the size of the moon. Then the pressure and temperature in the core is too small to be able to fusion, and then it simply isn't a star. But wow, I'm very surprised that a star can be so small, only a little bit larger than Jupiter. Ofc the mass of it should be many times bigger, since there are planets 4-5 times bigger than Jupiter in other solar systems (I think). Well, you never know. The universe is a huge place. Even if its a one in a trillion chance, it's still possible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2009, 10:24:37 PM » |
|
No, because if the stars got much smaller, they would simply turn into huge... Things that would be like planets.
Like a much bigger Jupiter.
There are neutron and quark stars, which are at the size of planets, but they're also only made out of neutrons or quarks I think. But they also aren't normal stars. I guess a star only consisting of neutrons can't fusion, if it's only made of neutrons.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hbmp88
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2009, 03:55:36 PM » |
|
Stars can't be the size of the moon. Then the pressure and temperature in the core is too small to be able to fusion, and then it simply isn't a star. But wow, I'm very surprised that a star can be so small, only a little bit larger than Jupiter. Ofc the mass of it should be many times bigger, since there are planets 4-5 times bigger than Jupiter in other solar systems (I think). Did you know that if Jupiter had more mass it would be able to have nuclear fusion at its core and thus would be a star?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Naru523
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2009, 04:31:11 PM » |
|
Yep...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2009, 10:07:30 PM » |
|
Ofc I knew that... Jupiter consists mainly of hydrogen, the same as main sequence stars use to fusion...
The diffrence between stars and gas giants is only the mass... In some way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Naru523
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2009, 05:44:01 PM » |
|
If it did... Our solar system would be a binary star system  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hbmp88
|
|
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2009, 06:10:16 PM » |
|
And we would be incinerated  ! There would be no nights, except for the time that Jupiter goes behind our sun. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MonkeyDLuffy
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2009, 09:29:52 PM » |
|
But there is two reasons why we might have night:
R1: Jupiter is too far away from us, so it wouldn't be shining on us, just like the stars that appeared at night.
R2: Jupiter needs more luminousy to shine to Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hbmp88
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2009, 08:47:44 PM » |
|
I guess the effects wouldn't be as dramatic as I stated but still there would be visible climate change and the way animals on Earth live would be effected greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
monmarfori
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2009, 08:52:49 PM » |
|
If saturn were a small star like the smallest star known. then our solar system is a binary system.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
atomic7732
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2009, 10:50:35 AM » |
|
I bet you fifty bucks there's a star the size of the moon.
Impossible, there wouldn't be enough gas and friction to start fusion. The brown dwarf limit is about 11jM and those aren't considered stars. You just lost your 50 bucks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
atomic7732
|
|
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2009, 10:51:21 AM » |
|
The largest one is TreS-3. It is doubled the size of Jupiter.
Tres-3 planet, were talking about stars. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
atomic7732
|
|
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2009, 10:53:15 AM » |
|
But there is two reasons why we might have night:
R1: Jupiter is too far away from us, so it wouldn't be shining on us, just like the stars that appeared at night.
R2: Jupiter needs more luminousy to shine to Earth.
Or the ESJ angle is low we would have a small night |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hbmp88
|
|
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2009, 03:25:04 PM » |
|
True, I didn't take that in effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
General Category
Print
