Essentially none. All starts are largely hydrogen, with helium being next most abundant.
A stars color is a function of it's temperature, from red (relatively cool) through orange, yellow, white blue-white and blue (hottest).
The relationship is that the color is an indication of the star's surface temperature. For example, red stars are cooler, while blue stars are hotter. You can find more details in the Wikipedia article "Stellar classification".
Blue stars are the hottest, and red stars the coolest. Our sun is orangey, so it's kinda in between blue (hot) and red (cool).
There is no simple relation. The color does not depend only on the mass. The same star can change color, without a significant change in mass. For example, our Sun is currently yellow; in a few billion years, it is expected to get much larger, becoming a red giant. However, if we limit the sample of stars to those on the "main sequence" of the "HR diagram", there is something of a relation between mass and color. The most massive stars are blue or white. They are also hottest and most luminous. The least massive are the red dwarf stars, which are relatively cool and dim. Our Sun, which is a "main sequence" star at present, is somewhere in between those extremes. (There is a strong relationship between mass and luminosity for main sequence stars. The HR diagram, of course, shows there is a relationship between luminosity and color for the main sequence stars.)
No. Stars vary in lots of aspects, including:* Diameter * Mass * Color (and the related surface temperature) * Chemical composition * Density (related to mass and diameter) * Brightness
The sun is also a star.
Stars are classified by their color, temperatures, sizes, and brightness, it could also be by composition and radiation.Scientists classify stars by color, luminosity, and temperature.
The relationship is that the color is an indication of the star's surface temperature. For example, red stars are cooler, while blue stars are hotter. You can find more details in the Wikipedia article "Stellar classification".
Blue stars are the hottest, and red stars the coolest. Our sun is orangey, so it's kinda in between blue (hot) and red (cool).
Yes, the composition of a star can be determined by analysis of its color, which would be described scientifically as spectrographic analysis.
you classify stars by color, temperature, size, composition, and brightness.
No. Main sequence stars are simply stars that are fusing hydrogen into helium and have a specific relationship between color and luminosity. They range from red dwarfs to large O-type main sequence stars.
The color of the light radiated by the spectra can show the internal composition as well as the gases burning on the outer layer. Red stars are colder and blue stars are hotter.
There is no simple relation. The color does not depend only on the mass. The same star can change color, without a significant change in mass. For example, our Sun is currently yellow; in a few billion years, it is expected to get much larger, becoming a red giant. However, if we limit the sample of stars to those on the "main sequence" of the "HR diagram", there is something of a relation between mass and color. The most massive stars are blue or white. They are also hottest and most luminous. The least massive are the red dwarf stars, which are relatively cool and dim. Our Sun, which is a "main sequence" star at present, is somewhere in between those extremes. (There is a strong relationship between mass and luminosity for main sequence stars. The HR diagram, of course, shows there is a relationship between luminosity and color for the main sequence stars.)
No. Stars vary in lots of aspects, including:* Diameter * Mass * Color (and the related surface temperature) * Chemical composition * Density (related to mass and diameter) * Brightness
It is believed that the soul undergoes a journey to the stars.
The sun is also a star.
By their color, primarily. There is a very strong correlation between the stars color and it's temperature.