What is the composition of Universe in terms of types of stars?

Jun 2, 2020
3
3
10
There are

- Main Sequence Stars
- Red Giants
- White Dwarfs
- Red Dwarfs
- Neutron Stars
and other types of Stars.
How many % of stars are Main Sequence? How many are Red Giants? and so on.

I searched around and found some info, but it's confusing me. For example,
I found that 90% stars are Main Sequence Stars, but at the same time, Red Dwarfs are the most common stars in the universe with 70%. What is true?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzroom
Jun 2, 2020
3
3
10
So, I think 90% are Main Sequence Stars, and out of those, 70% are Red Dwarfs maybe?
I am trying to calculate the approx probability of all types of stars. (If you chose a random star, the probability that it would be a Red Giant or a Neutron star, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzroom
Jun 1, 2020
1,650
1,411
3,560
You might find the following at Wiki helpful.....
Wiki

It states the approx. number of each star type in the galaxy, so you will need tolook at each class listed. to find their respective distribution. They show 76% for red dwarfs, but I don't know the range of error. Red dwarfs are hard to find and hard to distinguish between brown dwarfs. One study from 2005 had a list of over 200k red dwarfs , though this number is likely much higher today. Perhaps that's a large enough sample size but there are likely over 200 billion stars in the galaxy, so maybe not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzroom
Dec 19, 2019
27
4
35
There have been many perspectives on the cosmogony of our existence.
Similar to non-secular presentations of the belief that the universe as created by an omniscient being, scientists are divided into differing divisions of thought on the subject of cosmology; each built upon their own beliefs. Among such beliefs their have been many epiphanies and prophets to be sure. The more well-known of these cosmological theories are the Static Universe introduced by Albert Einstein, the Oscillatory Universe presented by Richard Tolman, the Big Bang Theory of the universe proposed by Georges Lemaitre, the transitional expanding universe theory promoted by Fred Hoyle as the Hot Big Bang Theory, the Steady State Theory postulated by Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi and also Fred Hoyle, and finally the Inflationary Universe Theory formulated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde and Paul Steinhardt and Andy Albrecht.

Subsequently a consensus for modeling cosmology was agreed upon based on the work of four scientists: Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson, and Arthur Geoffrey Walker. Occasionally referred to as the FLRW, FRW, FL, or RW (e.g., a complete or partial combination of their last initials) Universe, it presents a metric used to explain Einstein’s field equation of general relativity and thus became the foundation for the currently understood version of the standard ‘Big Bang Theory’. And yet outside of this consensus, there still persists a variety of alternative theories that are either likened to a pseudo steady state theory or a varied flavor of the big bang theory. However my theory differs from all of these in the fundamental presentiment of an evolving Space-Time continuum relative to the dimensional interactions of Space and Time by degrees; i.e., minimum and maximum.

But how to assemble these abstracted degrees in the dimensional fabric of Time and Space; that is the real challenge. Like any puzzle, the abstraction of the enigma plays an important role in understanding how it all fits together. Concepts like ‘no Time’ or ‘no Space’ represent ideals of infinity just a much as concepts like ‘all Time’ or ‘all Space.’ Any combination of ‘no Time’ or ‘no Space’ results in nonexistence. Still, at what point are concepts like ‘all Time’ or ‘all Space’ relevant to our current relative existence. Truly the acquisition of ‘all Time’ and ‘no Space’ is the prerequisite progenitor of creation; related via theorists as the instantaneous presentation of existence. Conversely, the evolutionary progression of an accelerating universe tends to minimize the dimensional influence of Time and eventually nullifies its existence. In a universe that is ever-beginning and ever-ending, it can also be said that the universe is never-beginning and never-ending. It is this ripple in the dimensional opponency of Time and Space for evolving realities that inspirits spatial continuums with motivation and direction; engendering the transience of an ever changing, ever temporal Present-Time, Space-Time continuum.

Present-Time events, seemingly separate from the extrinsic boundaries of Past-Time events or Future-Time events, form the temporal anomaly that divines the relativity, or relative condition, of our Space-Time continuum within this evolutionary progression. Therefore, within the expectations of our considered universal condition, the direction of our evolving realities would seem to be rationalized from a dimensional convergence of ‘maximum Time’ and ‘minimum Space’ toward a dimensional convergence of ‘minimum Time’ and ‘maximum Space’. Where upon this rationalization in which the acquisition of ‘all Time’ and ‘no Space’ is the considered entry point for this universal condition, then the acquisition of ‘no Time’ and ‘all Space’ would be the considered exit point for this universal condition.

Upon the event of any universal creation, the divining of Space in Time (or spaced Time) defines the first expression in, or being thereof, matter toward a material present. However this is matter in only an abstract sense of the ideal condition required to form the material from which the universe is now substantiated. This condition of matter is an evolutionary pertinacity that needs to be promulgated through more persuasive perturbations of the Space-Time continuum to procure a more evolved perspicuity in both the nature and promiscuity of its substantiation. Ideally, science defines this condition, in the personification of its pertinacity, as ‘gravity.’ Where upon its adverse condition, in the personification of its distraction, is defined as ‘not gravity’, or ‘antigravity.’ More recently, ‘anti-gravity’ has been distinguished by some scientists via of the more homogeneous term, ‘dark-energy,’ in hopes to distance its invention as separate of Albert Einstein's use of a cosmological constant. And yet ‘gravity’ is but another evolutionary digression in the temporal comingling of Space and Time.

The answer is better understood by thinking about gravity a bit differently. In fact, one actually has to reimagine the universe from its perspective make up. Considering the current notion the standard model of cosmology, the current measurements decompose the total energy of the observable universe with approximately 68% dark energy, 27% mass–energy via dark matter, and 5% mass-energy via ordinary matter. In which case, as black holes are significantly more energy dense than ordinary matter, it would then make more sense that black holes are a product of dark matter rather than condensed ordinary matter. This requires that we rethink these internal relationships for total energy.

Considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant. Then start unfolding this dimensional perspective so space-time fabric into existence; first into a two dimensional space-time fabric, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time fabric and so on. The expectation is that ordinary matter creation took place within a pre-existing medium of space-time. Indeed, the existence of ordinary matter would only warp the pre-existing fabric of space-time. Take away the positive density matter and you would still have a vessel in which the matter once existed. I would only be logical for the vessel to be one of dark matter; as dark energy remains unaffected by this promulgation of matter.

Wherein the creation of matter as a whole induces a complementary displacement, or warping, in the dark energy medium of the space-time fabric, its promulgation is interdependent on its insistence and persistence. For within this warping, there is yet another pertubation in the whole matter created; a dual relationship of newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. The complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This envelope of negative density matter, known as dark matter, then infiltrates the spaces in matter, providing it with the ability to interact, bond, and evolve. Indeed it would require much more dark matter to fill the spaces among ordinary matter down to its smallest constituent parts.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY