Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:26:21 UTC No. 16122768

earth avg density = 5,515kg/m3
sun avg density = 1,408kg/m3

1408/5515 = 0.2553

so 1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g. it's pretty light

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:32:12 UTC No. 16122781

>>16122768
Its nothing special isn't it. Or rather, the only thing that makes it special on many levels is its enormous size.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:34:03 UTC No. 16122783

>>16122768
>1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g
no, 1kg of earth takes the same space as roughly 250g of sun
the power density per m^3 is also very small

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:42:30 UTC No. 16122791

>>16122736
it's the normalfag of the stars, maybe a little light iirc

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:01:02 UTC No. 16122824

>>16122768
>so 1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:01:36 UTC No. 16122825

>>16122791
>it's the normalfag of the stars
what the hell does this even mean
please get off the internet and go outside or something

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:02:44 UTC No. 16122832

>>16122768
>1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g
you might want to check your SI units there anon

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:15:53 UTC No. 16122859

>>16122768
>so 1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:26:10 UTC No. 16122874

>>16122791
>>16122825
our sun is a mid-sized main sequence manlet that's not even in a binary system (loner incel star). it's over for us

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:39:41 UTC No. 16122898

>>16122874
our sun literally outshines 80% of the stars in the universe and is on the larger side of the "stars that last longer than zoomer with chronic porn addiction" category (aka dwarfs, though this is an outdated term)
the nearest sibling stars to sol heralding from the same primordial dust cloud are theorized to be around 100-180ish light years away
binary systems are also not conducive to life
you have let modern internet speak rot your brain

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:05:46 UTC No. 16122954

>>16122898
still 50 times lighter than a O star, and far lighter than a big BH

If want to compare by % then why not by total mass of each category? otherwise anything bigger than a boulder is 'huge' as most of the astronomical objects are microscopic.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:07:25 UTC No. 16122956

>>16122898
That's still 50 times lighter than a O star, and far lighter than a big BH

If you want to compare by % then why not by total mass % of each category? otherwise anything bigger than a boulder is 'huge' as most of the astronomical objects are microscopic. The Sun isn't the most common type of star but it isn't particularly special by itself.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:00:58 UTC No. 16123069

>>16122956
the higher the mass of a star the more inefficient it is
the only thing high mass stars are good for (provided they don't just shit themselves into black holes) is generating heavy elements and even then you don't want too much of that in a universe as metallicity is stellar poison

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:32:42 UTC No. 16123131

>>16123069
It's what it's.
Talking about "efficiency" or "good for" is meaningless, even those stars are needed to get to something like the solar system, small-slow-stable stars are kinda useless, they're simply too quiet and slow. The large "inefficient" are the only causing some change in its surroundings but they barely burns more hydrogen than a smaller star. In the end efficiency, or good for is meaningless.

>the higher the mass of a star the more inefficient it is
Most starts are "efficient" because they're too small for faster fusion pathways that ends blowing stars up before burning most of its hydrogen or helium.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 22:10:50 UTC No. 16123188

>>16122736
That's clearly a salami.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:30:55 UTC No. 16123386

>>16122768
Impressive bait. Have a (You) for effort

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:31:33 UTC No. 16123388

>>16122736
It's several trillion kilograms of hydrogen gas. This is "one ton of steel vs one ton of feathers" tier.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:34:03 UTC No. 16123390

>>16122736
it's pretty mid

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:37:16 UTC No. 16123392

>>16122736
Isn't it obvious? All the sun DOES is light.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:44:23 UTC No. 16123405

>>16122736
The sun is a little bit bigger than the Earth. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that the Earth weighs 1 big one. And the sun weighs 2 big ones.

Anything on the Earth that you might consider heavy, like an elephant, or a hammer, or a bathtub (filled with concrete) would have to weigh less than 1 big one, since the Earth as a whole weighs 1 big one.

By extension of this logic, anything you consider "heavy" would be lighter than the Sun, at least by a factor of 2.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:47:18 UTC No. 16123409

>>16123392
technically it also does heavier matter

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:48:36 UTC No. 16123411

if all hydrogen in sun would become liquid and no fusion would take place, how large of a liquid hydrogen ball would the sun be?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:58:51 UTC No. 16123419

>>16122768
1 kg of the sun weighs 1 kg...

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:04:56 UTC No. 16123424

It's heavy light.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:06:13 UTC No. 16123426

>>16123419
kgf =/= kg
kgf lends to confusion, so N is better.

And if you meant "weight" instead of mass, things in the Sun weights nearly 30 times more for the same mass.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:06:29 UTC No. 16123427

>>16122898
>chad red dwarf burns for trillions of years

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:19:35 UTC No. 16123439

>>16123419
Look at the size of it, that's cheating.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:47:41 UTC No. 16123873

>>16123427
Only red dwarf stars below that critical 0.25 solar masses threshold, which is where they become fully convective and thus the most efficient (they burn the slowest and get to use pretty much all of their fuel).

We need to make every star into a 0.25 solar mass red dwarf for that reason. Either that, or we improve all stars by changing several constants of the universe so that the bigger the star the more fuel it can use and thus live even longer by remaining fully convective instead of this retarded programming we have right now.

Also, red dwarfs are not actually red. They're the actual yellow/orange stars in visible light.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:48:53 UTC No. 16123876

What would touching the photosphere of the sun feel like, if you were indestructible? Would it be like wading through smoke or something similar to a fluid?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:57:45 UTC No. 16123885

>>16123876
>photosphere density: about 3×10^−4 kg/m3
really thin air

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:02:26 UTC No. 16123888

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:04:52 UTC No. 16123890

I updated the Sun recently.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48:41 UTC No. 16124018

Pretty light desu and since radioactive material tastes sweet i expect it to taste like a giant cotton candy
>>16122768
We need to introduce volume units to the general public, m3 needs to be used more
Also,lol

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:08:19 UTC No. 16124122

>>16123885
Damn, so what they say about aerobraking using stars is actually true on paper.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:53:51 UTC No. 16124163

>>16122768
Not how mass works.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:13:32 UTC No. 16124269

>>16122768
>so 1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:13:45 UTC No. 16124538

>>16122768
>so 1kg of sun weighs roughly 250g.