Why is it theoretically possible for stars to prove that they could not have existed in the first pl

This, I don't know what era of theory you are looking at by that Da Liu. Obviously, that theory has been rejected by practice, because what it deduces contradicts the facts, so even if this theory has ever appeared, it is still an abandoned theory.

Because physics does not allow such a theory to appear as a "theory" until now, this "theory" can only be a false proposition.

This is similar to the atoms that make us up. Originally, according to the classical theory of physics, the electrons outside the nucleus move in a circular motion, and the change in acceleration will cause them to radiate energy outward, and the energy of the electrons will become smaller and smaller, and finally they will be swallowed by the nucleus. The nucleus undergoes decay.

According to this theory, then there will be no atom that is stable. Then we don't have ......Therefore, Bohr put forward his orbital hypothesis, which was gradually refined by quantum mechanics over the next few decades, and finally replaced such a theory that was previously considered "truth".

In fact, as long as it is not in the nucleus, particles moving at high speed will still radiate energy outward as described in classical physics when they change direction, which is called "toughened radiation" in nuclear physics. Even in the nucleus, there is a certain chance that the electron will fall into the nucleus, causing the nucleus to decay in orbital trapping.

You can also make this analogy with the astronomer mentioned in Ball Lightning, but it is more obvious that the theory used by the astronomer is indeed outdated!

Stars, in the literal sense of the word, are eternal stars. In fact, there are no eternal stars in the universe. The sun is a star, but it was also formed hundreds of millions of years ago and will be destroyed in billions of years.

It seems to be 100,000 whys, but I can't remember the specific number clearly. It is said that before the destruction of the sun, there was a state that expanded, and the entire solar system would be swallowed up by the sun. I don't know if it's true or not, it may be the speculation of some scientist.

Then there is the definition of stars and planets. A planet is a star that orbits a star. Whereas, a star was previously defined as a star that can glow and heat and does not move on its own, with planets moving around it.

Words like this. The non-existence of the stars can be proved by the motion of the stars. Because the sun is a star, but the sun also revolves around the center of the Milky Way.

The new definition of a star is now made up of hot gases and is a globular or globheroid object that emits light on its own. It's tighter.

That's simply unfounded, since it (planets) exist, why do you still say that it doesn't exist, theory and practice are different after all, but it can't be too far away, planets are objects composed of some kind of matter, it is real, not some kind of illusory thing, science fiction is not science, science fiction is the kind of thing that is seven parts science and three parts fiction. Studying astronomy requires a rigorous attitude, and I couldn't tell the difference between science and science fiction when I first started studying, but as long as you compare the two sides, it is obvious.

Science fiction is based on the basics of science, something that has not yet been proven.

If it is already an existing problem, and the facts are in front of us, why bother arguing that it does not exist? For example, matter does exist, can you theoretically prove that it does not exist? Unless it is an unscientific point of view such as idealism, but this is a wrong understanding.

Therefore, science fiction is just science fiction, not science. The existence of stars is a fact.

From an astronomical point of view, stars also have a "life cycle". Stars are born in large, colder, molecularly composed clouds of dust and gas, after which they emit light with energy from nuclear fusion reactions inside. The length of its lifespan depends on the size of its own mass.

Massive stars have a shorter lifespan than stars with less mass.

When astronomers search for exoplanets, it's hard for them to predict what they'll find, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules to follow. NGTS-4b is a newly discovered exoplanet orbiting a distant star, but it didn't follow many of the rules that researchers thought they knew, earning it the nickname "Forbidden Planet" at Eggplant.

Scientists at the European Southern Observatory discovered NGTS-4B. The planet is located in an area known as the "Neptune Desert". It is a region close to the stars in a hostile environment, where planets of the size of Neptune are almost never found.

Planets found in this region usually lose their atmospheres.

NGTS-4B is a rare exception to this rule, as it appears to still maintain its atmosphere intact. This is quite alarming, especially since it is only at an Au distance from the star and has less than two Earth days of orbital rotation. It is estimated that the planet's surface temperature is around 1,000 degrees Celsius.

Well, how do you say this? It's not that this can't be proven, it's provable, it's just that human beings may change their views according to some changes in time. Because this star does exist.

Science fiction writer, first of all, she is a writer, then she is fantasy, and in the end, she only has a little science, so she doesn't have to worry about her theory, just watch it when she is a ** work.

To put it in layman's terms, it is to first know its existence, grasp its characteristics, and then deduce the conditions for its existence, which is a bit like hindsight.

For example, a 15-year bull market of 5100 points, because it exists, there are 10,000 reasons to justify it; Conversely, without this bull market, 10,000 reasons can be found that it could not exist.

In fact, it is literal, real science, or the real world, is often counter-intuitive. When you think that the world must be like this or it must not be like this, the real world is often the opposite of what you think.

So there is a saying in the field of science that is crucial: science must be falsifiable.

All scientific theories in the world are like this, they could have been easily proven to be wrong, but we have not been able to prove this by all means, so we accept it as correct. But if there is simply no way to prove a point of view in the world that can prove it wrong, then we consider that view to be fundamentally unscientific.

There's an object there, it's there, it's there, and if you have to think that it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. This has the implication of Buddhism and Wang Mingyang's idealism.

"Seeing a mountain is not a mountain" is the truth.

But science refutes idealism with a lot of data. For example, in the past, we thought that China was the best country and the earth was the center of the universe, but later we were subverted by science and technology!

The star, if it weren't for its actual existence, could have easily proved that it couldn't have existed?

This sentence is intended to show that even things that exist in reality are not fully grasped in terms of the principles of their formation, and it is easy to conclude that such things do not exist based on existing human knowledge.

It is because of the wonder of the universe and the fact that human beings know limited after all.

It is possible that such a celestial body exists. Generally speaking, in the formation of star systems, this type of celestial body will not be produced, but in star systems, when the star evolves to a supernova explosion, the energy released by the star explosion may push the planet away from its original orbit, or because the star disintegrates in the explosion, the entire star system will disintegrate, at this time, if the planet survives the explosion of the star, it will become "helpless", and it is possible to wander around in the universe and have nowhere to "settle down".

No, first of all, it is limited to the definition of planets, one of which is that there must be celestial bodies that revolve around stars, but theoretically there are celestial bodies that are neither stars nor planets, and scientists have not yet named the independent celestial bodies in between, because they do not emit light and it is difficult to observe from a distance, so they are almost ignorant of this kind of celestial bodies, and can only continue to pay attention to the research of scientists.

Planets are celestial bodies that revolve around stars, and if there are no stars, they are planets, and of course there are.

No object in the universe can exist on its own. All substances are operating at their prescribed rate. Planets orbiting a star can be more or less or less. All stars orbit with at least one focal point.

Yes, such planets have been discovered, as seen in the news "Astronomers discover a rare "lonely" planet".

One is the super-secret theory. It was proposed in 1955 by the famous Soviet astronomer Ambachumyan. He believed that stars were formed by a mysterious "prestellar substance"**.

Specifically, this prestellar material is very small in size and very dense, but its properties are not well understood. However, most scientists do not accept this view.

Different from the "super-dense theory" is the "diffuse theory". The main thrust is that stars are made up of low-density interstellar matter. Its origins can be traced back to the "nebula hypothesis" proposed by Kant and Laplace in the 18th century.

Interstellar matter is some very thin gas and fine dust matter that forms a huge cloud-like group all over the universe.

Nebulae are the materials that make up stars.

From the observations, nebulae are divided into two types: nebulae illuminated by nearby stars and dark nebulae. They have the shape of a net, bagel, etc., the most famous is the dark bay of Orion, which is shaped like the head of a black horse with a loose mane, so it is also called the horsehead nebula, and the American science writer Asimov said that it is more like the head and shoulders of the big bad wolf in the Disney cartoon.

Nebulae are the material that makes up stars, but the matter that really makes up stars is very large, and it takes a nebula cluster with a radius of 90 billion kilometers to make up a star like the Sun.

The process by which nebulae converge into stars.

From the nebula to the clustering of stars, it is divided into a fast contraction phase and a slow contraction phase. The former lasted hundreds of thousands of years, and the latter lasted tens of millions of years. The nebula contracted to form a starembryo, a thick, dark cloud with a dense nucleus in the center.

After that, it enters a slow contraction, also known as the protosidereal phase. At this time, the temperature of the star embryo continues to rise, and when it reaches a certain level, it will flash its body to show its existence and enter the juvenile stage. However, the luminescence was still unstable at this time, and it was still surrounded by diffuse nebulous material and projecting material into the outside world. Fixed star.