Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 50 Rep.
Comment everywhere
Badges
6
Impact
~160 people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 2 votes cast
Jan
25
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
I hadn't thought of that. I have no idea about how to implement that in some other way. So I can say that you are right in most respects. It's just that mass is probably the greatest factor in deciding the fate of a star. You can go to my forum here (gravitonsforum.freeforums.net) and find the topic under "Mainstream" if you want to discuss this further; I am interested.
Jan
25
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
I understand, but I was talking about evolutionary trends. For what it is, the HRD is a reliable graph. I also like the idea of having replacements for the third axis, but mass does the job. An alternative diagram could, therefore, be considered (or perhaps one may end up with an E4 Lie graph acting as a 2D orthogonal projection of a 4D graph).
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Jun
24
revised Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
edited title
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
BTW don't be confused - I have changed my name. Will try to submit my work to New Scientist!
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
Thanks, I'll see what I can do.
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
What I mean is that the HR diagram - and indeed, any heavily revised work - fits its ORIGINAL purpose. But additional purposes were added. These new purposes were not compatible, but this does not mean that the original diagram is not vaild.
Jun
24
awarded  Supporter
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
Oh yeah, almost forgot - how should I publish this? I've already been in touch with the Institute of Physics and they know about it - but where else can I go? (BTW I upvoted your answer. :))
Jun
24
awarded  Student
Jun
24
awarded  Editor
Jun
24
awarded  Scholar
Jun
24
accepted Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
Jun
24
revised Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
Revised arguments
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
Edited post for below reason.
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
Ah, I didn't word it right... The HR diagram fits it purpose, but extra purposes have been attributed to it and some of these purposes don't fit it. But thanks; I appreciate it. (I can't upvote this right now; I wish I could but I don't have enough reputation).
Jun
24
comment Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)
But then if it is only true of the main sequence, then what about other stars like red giants, supergiants and the aforementioned RV Tauri stars?
Jun
23
awarded  Teacher
Jun
23
asked Is there a flaw with the newer purposes and correlations attributed to the HR diagram? (And would a third axis of mass correct the enclosed flaw?)