Misplaced Pages

Talk:Asymptotic giant branch: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:42, 7 June 2008 editG.A.S (talk | contribs)15,807 edits Re-assess as start class← Previous edit Revision as of 05:21, 30 June 2008 edit undoWnt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users36,218 edits →Apparent contradiction: new sectionNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:


"surficide reactions"? - wouldn't surface chemical reactions be better? As it is, it sounds like your talking about the results of murdering surfers. ] (]) 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Jim Jacobs. "surficide reactions"? - wouldn't surface chemical reactions be better? As it is, it sounds like your talking about the results of murdering surfers. ] (]) 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Jim Jacobs.

== Apparent contradiction ==

The diagram in this article shows stars moving horizontally from the main sequence to supergiant status. The diagram shown in most of the other articles, e.g. ], shows the supergiants far higher in absolute magnitude. Please reconcile or clarify this. ] (]) 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:21, 30 June 2008

WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

"as large as one astronomical unit"

Probably meant to say "in radius", but the naïve might assume "in diameter." This is vague at best and wrong at worst, since isn't even Sol expected to get bigger than 1AU radius in several billion years? --Polymath69 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"surficide reactions"? - wouldn't surface chemical reactions be better? As it is, it sounds like your talking about the results of murdering surfers. 144.137.116.114 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Jim Jacobs.

Apparent contradiction

The diagram in this article shows stars moving horizontally from the main sequence to supergiant status. The diagram shown in most of the other articles, e.g. giant star, shows the supergiants far higher in absolute magnitude. Please reconcile or clarify this. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: