Red Giants - bugged or ok ?

Kitty

Kitty
I know this subject has come up before, but at what point do we say that a red is bugged by being too small?

What would be the smallest size of a small red giant that was considered ok?

Is this red giant too small or does it look ok?


K0ywgYj.png
 

Belthize

Belthize
It's a bit on the low side (.3 SM is typically the lower bound) but only a bit. Surface temp is also a bit low but only by about a factor of 2 (5K is typically lower bound).

Given it's smaller mass the lower temp makes sense.

Not sure on the radius, depends on what they're measuring. The bit that's still undergoing fusion or the outer envelope. If it's the latter then yeah, that Radius is way too small. If it's the former then it maybe about right though it seems a touch too big.
 

Kitty

Kitty
OK, and many thanks for your thoughts. I think I will leave all my red giants that look odd, and maybe report them as needing checking in the bugs forum all in one go once I have handed them in. Problems like this are not urgent, and with the release of 2.1 coming along, I don't think they would want to be bogged down with discrepancies like these.

Kitty
 

Varrag

Varrag
Size and surface temperature tells that this star should be a red dwarf rather than the red giant. I'm not sure what to make of it.

In any case, Stellar forge has obvious bugs in this regard, one the funniest are stars older than the universe (18+ billion years).
 

Kitty

Kitty
Varrag said:
In any case, Stellar forge has obvious bugs in this regard, one the funniest are stars older than the universe (18+ billion years).
Click to expand...

Well, yes kinda funny, but to be honest, the idea of a "Big Bang" or "Inflation" marking the birth of the Universe, doesn't float my boat. I am also not convinced that the speed of light has always been constant in a pure vacuum. So the apparent age of Universe using the current adopted theories, in my mind is incorrect. Don't ask me for my own theories as I really don't have any. It is just that some of the ideas require a big leap of faith, as it were.

Slightly off topic I know, but being the OP, I guess that is ok :p
 

Patau82

Patau82
Varrag said:
Size and surface temperature tells that this star should be a red dwarf rather than the red giant. I'm not sure what to make of it.

In any case, Stellar forge has obvious bugs in this regard, one the funniest are stars older than the universe (18+ billion years).
Click to expand...

Star will show as a red dwarf if you check galmap, only system map description is bugged
other know bugged descriptions are Class B super giant show up as Class A super giants, there's a few others too
Star ages were also revised a while back oldest stars are now just over 13 million years.
 

Bomba Luigi

Bomba Luigi
I remember stumble across a Red giant with very similiar Numbers, it was funny because he was the secondary star and the main star and entry point was a plain normal M class Star that was bigger then the Red giant.
 

Varrag

Varrag
Patau82 said:
Star ages were also revised a while back oldest stars are now just over 13 million years.
Click to expand...

Eh, missed that during my absence. Just checked one system in which I found the star 18.4 billion years old... now it says 12.5. One bug less [up]

Kitty said:
Well, yes kinda funny, but to be honest, the idea of a "Big Bang" or "Inflation" marking the birth of the Universe, doesn't float my boat. I am also not convinced that the speed of light has always been constant in a pure vacuum. So the apparent age of Universe using the current adopted theories, in my mind is incorrect. Don't ask me for my own theories as I really don't have any. It is just that some of the ideas require a big leap of faith, as it were.
Click to expand...

Well, who knows. Just recently deGrasse Tyson said that there is pretty big chance we are living in simulation, so there's that :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom