because it takes a star long time to reach at the stage. That's wahy the astronomers can't see the dwarfs stars, and also these stars are small you will have to foucus on it little hard.
Rocks are to geologists as stars are to astronomers.
no, dwarf stars don't have enough mass
They do not necessarily have greater luminosity, it depends on their size. Betelgeuse is cooler and brighter; a red dwarf is cooler and less bright.
Astronomers.
Stars with a mass 1.5 times greater than the sun are typically classified as intermediate-mass stars. These stars will evolve into red giants and then shed their outer layers to form a planetary nebula before eventually cooling down and becoming a white dwarf.
Astronomers
Rocks are to geologists as stars are to astronomers.
Basically, none. Red dwarf stars have a lifetime that is much larger than the age of the Universe.Actually, if a lot of additional mass falls on a red dwarf star, it would start to burn more quickly. But then, of course, it would no longer be a red dwarf star.
Stars...
Astronomers classify stars.
No one knows. Astronomers are scanning the visible stars of our own Milky Way galaxy for planets orbiting faraway stars, but such planets would have to be nearly the size of Jupiter to be detected at such distances
no, dwarf stars don't have enough mass
dwarf stars -Sydney-
Astronomers rate the magnitude of a star using the apparent magnitude scale, which measures the brightness of a star as seen from Earth. The lower the magnitude number, the brighter the star appears. Negative numbers indicate very bright stars, while positive numbers indicate dimmer stars.
They do not necessarily have greater luminosity, it depends on their size. Betelgeuse is cooler and brighter; a red dwarf is cooler and less bright.
No, not all dwarf stars are failed stars. Only brown dwarfs are called "failed stars".
None. No planet or dwarf planet contains stars.