what is the ratio of freckles to the stars?
441685
Thats one of the funniest questions I've ever heard, and definately a first.\n\nRatio...lol \n\nEven if someone could give you an accurate number it would be too large a number on the star side to even begin to comprehend, and too small a number on the freckle side to even be able to comprehend.  No one knows the exact number of stars, or even galaxies that contain them.
962212
1. Pp (heterozygous)\n2. Both parents are heterozygous (Ff)\nSince both parents show intense freckles, it must be a dominant trait. In order to have non-freck. children, they both must be heterozygous. Ff x Ff ----> 3:1 ratio expected; frec. to non-freck.\n3a) All four blood groups are possible\n  b)25% possibility for each\n\nFor#3, do a Punnett square-   A i   x   B i
642903
As many, as there are stars in the universe.
1017822
stars are very far away and that light u see has been traveling through space for maybe decades now and its passed through clouds of dust and a bunch of stuff.  That makes the star twinkle and gives it colors.  Also, stars are not white(unless they are white dwarfs, but those arnt really stars or they are really really big and hot).  Almost all stars have a color to them.  These can be blue, red, yellow, orange, or any of those colors inbetween.
596808
type of star\nspectral type\ndistance from star to Earth
335691
Cover them with makeup.\n\nPersonally I love freckles. I think they make a girl really cute.
193287
well stars are in real more like our sun which gives heat and light, but y they have diff color id coz AS ALL THE STARS ARE NOT AT THE SAME DISTANCE FRM THE EARTH THE LIGHT WHICH TRAVELLS FRM THEM AND REACHES US GIVE THEm COLOR .\n\nLIKE white light has 7 colors in it and each has different wave lenght which means that their light travels on those wave lenghts, and secondly the air in our atmosphere water particles are suspended always and these light passing through them give different wave lenght wch gives us diff color
403997
Astronomy:The life of Stars. You can get some awesome pictures for that and there is plenty to write about, like (i am not completely sure about this number)did u know that light takes almost 250,000 years to travel from the center of our sun to the surface.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
380436
Our Sun is a normal main-sequence G2 star, one of more than 100 billion stars in our galaxy.\n\ndiameter: 1,390,000 km.\nmass: 1.989e30 kg\ntemperature: 5800 K (surface)\n15,600,000 K (core)
308236
When performing star counts, astronomers consider many different categories which have created been to classify a few stars that have been well studied. One of the hopes of studying the results of star counts is to discover new categories. Different counts typically seek to categorize stars for only a few of the qualities listed below, and determine how common each considered quality is and how stars of that kind are distributed.\n\nTemperature. In astronomy, temperature is usually shown using the letter codes O B A F G K M L T running from blue (type O) through white (type F) to red (type M). Types L and T are used for brown dwarfs, whose 'colors' are in the infrared. \nSize. Size is usually designated by Roman numerals I (supergiants) through V (dwarfs). \nAge. Stars are usually grouped into Population I (young) and Population II (old). \nLocation. In the Milky Way Galaxy the groups are described as thin disk, thick disk, central bulge, and halo. \nMultiplicity. Most stars appear to be members of double star or triple star, or even double-double star systems. Our own sun appears to be rare for not having a companion star. \nThere are many finer subdivisions in all of the above categories.\nIn which category you want me to count the Stars.
151556
Ratio is the correct answer.
212043
90% of stars of Red Dwarfs, but they are dim, and difficult to see, and the person above me is wrong , only about 3-5% of stars are like our sun. you cant see them because they dont put out very much energy, and are quite small. You may be able to see more of them if you had a telescope.
1091585
You've awakened the starry-eyed dreamer in me at this late hour!  I should be sleeping, but can't resist your question.\n\nHow many other planets, do I think?  Actually my number is a lot higher than millions!  In fact, on this subject you get into numbers so large that most of us humans cannot relate them to anything in our experience.  So, sadly, I doubt we can appreciate the grandeur of the universe.  But let me try...\n\nOne fairly recent estimate says there are 70 sextillion *visible stars* in range of modern telescopes (70,000 million million million).\n\nTo help put that in perspective, I'll use a rather old but useful analogy.  Imagine scooping up a big handful of sand at the beach. Try counting the grains of sand.  You'll give up, most likely, in seconds, assuming you even bother to try.  Now look all around you on the beach, and think about *that* number.  Now think about all the grains of sand on *all the world's* beaches... and deserts.  Now multiply that total number by ten, and you get approximately the number above -- of stars in the *known* universe.  The stars not visible to us by even our most powerful telescopes may equal the visible figure -- or be multiples of it.  Mind-boggling, no?\n\nSo to your planet question:  One next has to wonder how many of those stars are actually a sun to one or more planets (hey, I just noticed that was your wording, too; I like it).  Does every star have at least one planet revolving about it?  \n\nWell let's just be very conservative and say that there are only 70 sextillion stars in the *entire* (not just known) universe.  Let's further say that only one tenth of those stars (7 sextillion) have a planet orbiting them.  If we assume merely one planet per sun, then there must be at least 7 sextillion planets in the universe.  Using our sand analogy, that's a planet per grain of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts!\n\nAnyone who believes that is a reasonable number must surely wonder, "How could there NOT be living beings somewhere other than the earth?"  \n\nOf course not all planets will have life on them.  Earth may be the only body in our solar system, for example, which does harbor life, though at least one of Jupiter's moons is also a tantalizing possibility.\n\nIf only one out of a *thousand* of those planets are earth-like -- in the sense that they are rocky, not gaseous, and contain liquid water -- there may be 7 quintillion earth-like planets in the universe.  That's 7,000 thousand trillion.  I've been very careful, but if my math or estimates are off by even a factor of a *billion* there could be 7,000 million earth-like planets in the universe, a figure I think is extremely low.\n\nThese figures seems to jibe fairly well with an estimate of the number of earth-like planets in our galaxy alone, found at space.com (the bottom link in my sources) -- 30 billion, from a 2002 article.\n\nMy personal belief, based on numbers such as this, and on the likelihood that any planet supporting life may contain (extremely conservatively!) a thousand species...  is that there are *billions* of intelligent species in the universe outside the earth.\n\nSince you were wise to point out that we reside in the Milky Way galaxy, which is only one of perhaps billions of galaxies, you might be fascinated by the Hubble photo in the references, below.  I liked it so much, myself, that I made it my new desktop wallpaper.\n\nFinally, on the specific subject of life, there is a well-known method of estimating the number of intelligent, communicating civilizations, called the Drake Equation.  In my references you can see how it works to condense all the possible stars down by multiple factors, leaving the fraction which we may be able to communicate with, or at least hear from!  \n\nHappy dreaming (for me, too), and I hope you are as inspired by all this as I am.   :-)
185636
Star pattern.\n\n.........*.........\n...................\n*.....*.....*.....*\n.....*.......*.....\n.........*.........\n...................\n*.................*
364385
Stars are not scattered randomly through space, they are gathered together into vast groups known as galaxies. The Sun belongs to a galaxy called the Milky Way. Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also!  \n \n  \n \n \n Hipparcos mapped millions of stars in our galaxy, but how many more are there? \nIt has been said that counting the stars in the Universe is like trying to count the number of sand grains on a beach on Earth. We might do that by measuring the surface area of the beach, and determining the average depth of the sand layer. \n\nIf we count the number of grains in a small representative volume of sand, by multiplication we can estimate the number of grains on the whole beach. \n\nFor the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 1011 to 1012 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 1011 or 1012 galaxies. \n\nWith this simple calculation you get something like 1022 to 1024 stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places. \n\nNo one would try to count stars individually, instead we measure integrated quantitites like the number and luminosity of galaxies. ESA's infrared space observatory Herschel, to be launched in 2007, will make an important contribution by 'counting' galaxies in the infrared, and measuring their luminosity in this range - something never before attempted.
261012
the nearest star is the sun having nine planets in orbit.the sun is 93,027,003 miles away from earth.if you dont beleive me,go ask you teacher or someone.
430231
The nearest star, the Sun, is 93 million miles from earth. The second closest, Proxima Centauri, is a small, red star at 4.2 light years.