It seems to be the agreed opinion in Astrophysics, that in order for a stellar object to be called “Star” it has to have nuclear fusion. While a redefiniton would be possible, there is no need and it would just cause confusion.
Comment on Science fact
anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks agoThey are!
Electromagnetically and gravitationally and chemically they act like stars.
Gas giant simulations are often performed by stellar codes such as mesa. Stellar physics and stellar simulations with fusion turned off. Morphologically, they are stars. We should move on from the cold war brain’s fusion chauvinism.
They are fundamentally different objects than planets. They have their own planetary systems. They’re stars, just unlit.
Juno gravity results imply Jupiter’s core is dissolved hydrogen plasma sludge, also known as the dilute core model. Kronoseismology (using saturn’s rings as a seismograph; Cassini read it like a DVD) implies the same is likely true for Saturn due to the discovery of g-mode waves mixing with the f-mode signal detected by ring occultations.
quantenzitrone@lemmings.world 5 weeks ago
anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
It absolutely depends on the context.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Literally none of those links talk about “Y dwarf stars.”
Yep. You’re just a troll.
jadedwench@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
This is really fascinating! Today I learned.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
You didn’t learn because none of those links were about “Y dwarf stars,” which are not a thing.
jadedwench@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Fuck you
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I’m sorry the lack of existence of Y dwarf stars makes you angry, but they still don’t exist.
dave@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
I wandered in here from computer science, and I’m going back to solving parallel cache coherency for a bit of light relief.