Electromagnetically and gravitationally and chemically they act like stars.
Gas giant simulations are often performed by stellar codes such as mesa. Stellar physics and stellar simulations with fusion turned off. Morphologically, they are stars. We should move on from the cold war brain’s fusion chauvinism.
They are fundamentally different objects than planets. They have their own planetary systems. They’re stars, just unlit.
It seems to be the agreed definition in Astrophysics, that in order for a stellar object to be called “Star” it has to have nuclear fusion.
While a redefiniton would be possible, there is no need and it would just cause confusion.
Jupiter and Saturn are not brown dwarves.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/ask-astro-why-is-jupiter-not-a-star-or-a-brown-dwarf/
Here’s Jupiter on Wikipedia’s list of Y-class brown dwarves.
Jupiter and Saturn are in fact brown dwarves.
Stellar classes are OBAFGKMLTY, from most to least massive.
Did you even read that page you linked to? Right at the top, it says:
Yes.
Y dwarf stars are a mix of what was previously classified under those mass classifications.
“Y dwarf stars” are not even a thing!
Neither brown dwarfs nor planetary-mass objects are stars.
Are you just a troll?
They are!
Electromagnetically and gravitationally and chemically they act like stars.
Gas giant simulations are often performed by stellar codes such as mesa. Stellar physics and stellar simulations with fusion turned off. Morphologically, they are stars. We should move on from the cold war brain’s fusion chauvinism.
They are fundamentally different objects than planets. They have their own planetary systems. They’re stars, just unlit.
Juno gravity results imply Jupiter’s core is dissolved hydrogen plasma sludge, also known as the dilute core model. Kronoseismology (using saturn’s rings as a seismograph; Cassini read it like a DVD) implies the same is likely true for Saturn due to the discovery of g-mode waves mixing with the f-mode signal detected by ring occultations.
I wandered in here from computer science, and I’m going back to solving parallel cache coherency for a bit of light relief.
It seems to be the agreed definition in Astrophysics, that in order for a stellar object to be called “Star” it has to have nuclear fusion. While a redefiniton would be possible, there is no need and it would just cause confusion.
It absolutely depends on the context.
This is really fascinating! Today I learned.
You didn’t learn because none of those links were about “Y dwarf stars,” which are not a thing.
Fuck you
Literally none of those links talk about “Y dwarf stars.”
Yep. You’re just a troll.