Scioly.org

We don't.

I second that, star charts are the best for learning the constellations.

It all depends on what your preference is. I would say that star charts are the easiest way to start, and are a good way to start learning the patterns. However, if you want to use other things, that's perfectly fine as well. As long as you learn the information, any method is fine.

One thing I would suggest is, while studying, go out one clear night and look up into the night sky, and try to find the constellations and stars that are visible. This is a good way to practice, and it's very cool to be able to look up into the sky and say "I know what star that is." (Okay, so there's light pollution in cities. Sorry, I can't really help that. Maybe go camping or something. )

Suburbs of a huge city in a populated neighborhood with terrible vision. Going outside for stars is not the best for me.
Even in the middle of Canada with nothing around, I cannot see the stars.

I live in the forest so I can see the stars and constellations.

spacescholar wrote:I live in the forest so I can see the stars and constellations.

ahaha same
i feel of the luckier sort here

U lucky! I live in the suburbs of IL with a lot of light pollution. But the light pollution filter on my telescope is pretty awesome! It works! Yaay!

Sorry. So, I was wondering if a wormhole could be expanded so it was large enough for a human to fit through. (There should be a cosmology event.)

My actual question was: Is there a direct proportion on how massive the core of a star is to the mass of the star itself?

Cheesy Pie wrote:U lucky! I live in the suburbs of IL with a lot of light pollution. But the light pollution filter on my telescope is pretty awesome! It works! Yaay!

Sorry. So, I was wondering if a wormhole could be expanded so it was large enough for a human to fit through. (There should be a cosmology event.)

My actual question was: Is there a direct proportion on how massive the core of a star is to the mass of the star itself?

That is indeed a very good question, I searched all my textbooks, and online but cannot find anything, if someone could answer that it would be awsome

foreverphysics wrote:Do you guys think that Reach For the Stars is better or is Forestry better? Because the two events conflict...and I like the idea of both.

It depends on your interest, just ask your self,
"If I had to be a astronomer or a...ummm....(*Googling, Googling*) AH Yes, a arborist, what would I be???"

If you want my opinion, I'd choose Reach 4 the Stars in a heartbeat. I think stars are more interesting because I always wonder how scientists determine its properties from a 100 light years away! Trees are just things that are on the side of a road or in a yard...which (ironically) is probably where most people look at stars.

I'm not a star person at all (My brother spacescholar is though)... But we were camping at Arches National Park in Utah this past week and it was sooo amazing to see all the constellations and the milky way in full and all sort of other objects in space.