3 ms·
> should look deceptively young due to time dilation That's not how we date stars. We typically date the star by it's metallic content. More non-hydrogen eleme
by malfist 2y ago
> should look deceptively young due to time dilation
That's not how we date stars. We typically date the star by it's metallic content. More non-hydrogen elements in it's spectrograph, then we know it's an older generation of stars.
- Starlevel004 2y ago> More non-hydrogen elements in it's spectrograph, then we know it's an older generation of stars. It's actually the exact opposite, but yes.
- malfist 2y agoYes thank you, got it backwards
- pfdietz 2y agoThere's some weird caveats, like so-called "Lead Stars". These are aged stars with very large amounts of lead relative to other heavy elements. This happens because lead is the end nuclear of the so-called s-process, where neutrons are captured at a slow rate in large stars whose internal processes produce some neutrons by (alpha,n) reactions. In lead stars, there are so few seed nuclei (those metals) that each of the seed nuclei that are there can capture many more neutrons.
- jddj 2y agoDoes it matter in this context whether it's metals or tree rings or wrinkles around the eyes? It's all time, right?
- klyrs 2y ago> It's all time, right? Sure, but we can measure time dilation between the peak of a mountain and the base of a mountain, due to the differing velocities. Time is relative!