5 ms·
I don't think so - it's deeply misleading to say it's powered by gravitational collapse, which is tiny in the energy budget. They are formed by gravitation coll
by xioxox 7y ago
I don't think so - it's deeply misleading to say it's powered by gravitational collapse, which is tiny in the energy budget. They are formed by gravitation collapse and gravity is necessary for their function. A fire wouldn't start without a match, but you wouldn't say they are powered by matches or the air.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoI don't think saying stars are essentially about gravitational collapse is misleading, certainly not compared to saying fusion is the dominating part of the story while leaving out opacity. In the story of the match, who lights the fire is far more interesting, to me, than what brand of match is. Honestly stellar evolution is far too much chemistry for me, just give me a well calibrated redshift and I'm happy.
- xioxox 7y agoI think we have to disagree there. Of course the details about what brings matter together, the opacity, etc, are important, just like anode/cathode design and casing are important in batteries. Gravity's decisively not where the energy is coming from. Without fusion, stars would be cold, slowly cooling lumps of matter (or black holes, if there were no initial stars).