Small stars last longer than big ones because they burn their nuclear fuel more slowly and efficiently. While massive stars have higher temperatures and pressures in their cores, leading to rapid fusion of hydrogen into helium, they exhaust their fuel quickly. In contrast, smaller stars, like red dwarfs, fuse hydrogen at a much slower rate, allowing them to sustain nuclear fusion for billions of years, often outliving their larger counterparts by a significant margin.
No, big stars die out in a few million years whereas little stars may take billions or even trillions of years to die. This is because big stars use all of their energy up very quickly because they need to use lots of energy to keep them alive.
No, but because small stars emit less light than large ones, they are only visible to the naked eye at comparatively "short" distances in interstellar terms while larger, brighter stars are visible at much greater distances.
The lifespan of a star is inversely related to its mass; more massive stars burn through their nuclear fuel much more quickly than less massive ones. While a small star like a red dwarf can live for tens to hundreds of billions of years, a massive star may only last a few million years before exhausting its fuel and undergoing supernova. This relationship is largely due to the rate of nuclear fusion occurring in the star's core, which increases with mass. Thus, heavier stars have shorter lifespans, while lighter stars can exist for much longer periods.
Stars can have different absolute brightness due to variations in their size, temperature, and distance from Earth. Larger stars have more surface area to emit light, hotter stars emit more intense light, and stars that are closer appear brighter. These factors contribute to the variations in absolute brightness among different stars.
The ones that are farther from the sun have longer revolutions.
No, big stars die out in a few million years whereas little stars may take billions or even trillions of years to die. This is because big stars use all of their energy up very quickly because they need to use lots of energy to keep them alive.
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.
Because larger stars burn their hydrogen faster than smaller ones.
More expensive tiles do not last any longer than the cheaper ones. It depends on the quality of the make of the tiles, and how they are layed.
Metal material is stronger than aluminum and it will last longer. It will also save you money in the long run.
the hubba bubba ones
They last a hell of a lot longer than the ones back then
I need a webcam to show you@@@@@ try origamifun.com and click on origami stars and click on wishing stars the really small ones and there you go!
Likely only stars in other galaxies or ones that are already dying. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, meaning it takes light from stars at one end 100,000 years to reach the other, which is a short time in the life of a star; most stars last billions of years while the most massive may last a few million. Other galaxies are millions to billions of light years away.
Our sun is a yellow star, and its life span is roughly 9 billion years--on the main sequence. Smaller yellow stars would last longer, while larger ones would burn out faster.
It depends on the size. Small, dim stars live much, much longer than large, bright ones. The expected lifetime of a star like the Sun as a main-sequence star is about 10 billion years.
Because they will last lots longer than plastic or wooden ones.