Comments

• orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Whoever made this needs to learn how to form coherent statements.

  source

  • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Indeed. I’m pretty sure whatever is being communicated is probably interesting, but I can barely grasp it.

    source

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I think (and IANA astrophysicist) that they are saying because of the density of the sun, forced if gravity are so strong that time dilation occurs, making the core “older” than the surface.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Fatal@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Yeah I was trying to figure out this as well. It’s about gravitational time dilation. The increased gravity at the center of the sun means that about 25,000 fewer years have passed there than at the surface.

      source
• KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  older. The core is older. It was there first.

  source

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    They both formed at the same time, none came first.

    Due to general relativity and the immense gravity inside the core of the sun it is in fact 39,000 years younger compared to the outside where time flows faster.

    source
• OpenStars@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  …it got better?

  (This is a famous quote from Monty Python:

  img )

  source
• davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  What about convection? There’s been at least some mixing, right? So I’d guess the average age of a nucleus from the core (ignoring fusion) would indeed be less than from the surface, but I would think it’s less difference (on average) than the raw math. If there’s enough mixing it could be very little difference at all.

  source