Want this question answered?
The smaller stars generally live longer due to less mass & less hydrogen is burned.
Stars that burn cooler and dimmer use less fuel, and so will last longer before they go out. smaller stars are generally more stable than larger ones, and so usually last longer because they contract into dwarf stars instead of going supernova. going with those assumptions, the longest-burning star would be a red dwarf star.
False. They are less numerous.
Yes
The most massive stars; they will use up their fuel much faster than less-massive stars. or even low mass star which is less then half the mass of our sun may able to last more then a trillion years that is longer then the universe age
The more renewable energy we use the less non-renewable energy we use. And if we use less of it, it'll last longer.
No, sadly, it lasts less longer then the DS lite...
A star with a mass of 2solar masses, 2times the mass of the sun, would have a main-sequence stage of half the life of a star with the mass of our sun. More massive stars die faster, less massive stars live longer and therefore have longer main-sequence stages.
If by smaller, you mean ones with less mass, then the answer is yes. This is because while smaller stars have less mass to burn. They burn it more slowly and more efficiently thereby increasing their lifespan.
Although they can last longer most weak tornadoes last less than 5 minutes.
The more mass a star has the less time it has to live or "be a star." The less mass a star has the longer it has to live.
When there is less gravity, there is less gas is this true or false