Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

I can see that this question has been downvoted but I think it still deserves a proper answer. First, it is the Chandrasekhar (one word) limit, named after the Indian-American astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Second, the Chandrasekhar limit does not mean that an object cannot be more massive than 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. There are plenty of ...


1

If two stars form from the giant molecular cloud it is usually assumed that their chemical abundances, including the chemical abundances in the photosphere - which is what is measured by stellar spectroscopy, will be the same. This is because it is thought that mixing and turbulence within the cloud are efficient enough to chemically homogenise it. Of ...


1

It's a pinhole camera image of the sun - as DJohnM's comment said. My question is: Aren't 'lenses' required to converge the rays to make an image? How can a hole in the centre of a cardboard form 'images'. No - all that is required is an aperture (hole) to restrict the range of rays that reach the screen to form an image. All a lens does is allow a ...


1

Why clouds scatter red wavelenght? I think it is kind of unusual clouds. There is two processes going: absorbtion $A$ and reflection $S$ (scatter). I think that these type of clouds have density which is causing ratio of $S/A$ to be big enough for thin lower border so we could see that red light. I personally think that this type of clouds consists of ...


2

Be careful about your description. One distinction which can be made is that the "sky" is not red, it's the lower faces of low-hanging clouds. You've certainly noticed the fact that, near the horizon, the sun looks red. This is due to Rayleigh scattering, which is also responsible for the sky being blue. What is happening here is the sun (out of sight ...


1

As explained above, the dominant theory of stellar formation, and thus the formation of the Sun, is through the collapse of gas. The theory goes that a large cloud called the giant molecular cloud will start "clumping" through a combination of gravity and shock waves, and these clumps will eventually collapse into stars. A giant molecular cloud can form many ...


3

Star formation isn't completely answered, but it is well believed that a solid core is not necessary. However if the sun did form around a planetary-sized solid core we would not know the difference. Due to the very high temperature of the sun, the result is not meaningfully different from colliding with planetary bodies early on (which is plausible given ...


1

The sun definitely does not have a solid core. The temperature and pressure is way too high to maintain such a close-proximity atomic structure, especially since it is a hydrogen fusion reactor. Solids have atoms with nuclei that remain in a constant position (not like, the object doesn't move, but it's relative position is fixed), but that would mean that ...


2

The Sun did not form around a solid core. Rather, it seems to have formed from a cloud of collapsing gas that may have been further enriched by matter from a nearby supernova. Gravitational force caused the collapsing cloud to start spinning, and the spinning compressed it into a disc with a bulge in the center that became the Sun. Here is a better ...


10

No, the Sun is not thought to have formed around a solid core, and solids would not exist at the temperatures and pressures at the centre of the protosun. The Sun formed simply from the gravitational collapse of a large cloud of gas. The situation for Jupiter is different because far out in the circumstellar disc of the forming solar system, it was cool ...



Top 50 recent answers are included