Talk:Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article star Star is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 19, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
Featured article FA Star has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Definition

There is a conflict between the definition of star at the head of the article and the linked article on white dwarf. The definition here (which makes nuclear fusion a prerequisite) would deny a white dwarf the status of being a star, but the linked article states unequivocally that a white dwarf is a star. The balance of this article seems to take care to avoid contradicting its own definition.

This is a tricky one to resolve. One way might be to adopt the historical approach:


Historically, the word star (or a word of which it is a translation) meant a fixed star - any one of the large number of point-like light sources visible in the night sky and sharing a single common daily apparent motion. The science of astronomy has revealed that all such stars are ...
As astronomical discoveries have been made the precise boundaries of the catgegory of stars have come into dispute, on the basis of the inferred history and the current state of particular objects. -- Alan Peakall 13:56 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
The definition is too technical. I imagine a third-grader researching about stars would find all the physics terms confusing. Is there a way to get a kid-friendly (or even a high-school-friendly) definition that is still accurate? —seav 11:46 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Stars appear, upon the celestial sphere, as twinkling points of light.
is as simple as I could go
Okay, I tried a more general introduction. Comment and edit as needed. :) —seav 23:24 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that the section 'Nuclear fusion reaction pathways' deserve it's own article looxix 19:26 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

The opening paragraph links to both disc and outer space, which don't seem to be very relevant. Could someone make a more relevant article on disc ("the sun appears as a disc")? Also, I'm sure that outer space can also have its own article, and not just a redirect to space science. I seem to recall that outer space is defined as the region above an imaginary boundary several kilometers from the surface of the earth. Below that is the inner space/atmosphere? —seav 08:15 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In answer to AstroNomer's question, I remarked the other day that Mars was the brightest "star" in the sky, causing no confusion or disagreement among my audience. (Instead we started talking about the relative apparent magnitude of various planets, ultimately looking things up on Wikipedia. ^_^) I also regularly refer to meteors as "falling stars", which seems so much more romantic. Of course, I recognise the imprecision of such language (which I don't use when discussing astronomy); naturally this deserves nothing more in the article that a mention in passing of colloquial usage -- which is what it has. -- Toby Bartels 04:32, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article also refers to stars as "gaseous", whereas astronomers and astrophysicists frequently refer to various things as "stars" that are in states of matter rather more exotic than what we usually consider gaseous (neutron stars, hypothetical strange-matter stars, etc.) These days astronomers seem to avoid referring to brown dwarfs (which never quite make it to initiating fusion) as stars, but most things that used to be main-sequence stars seem to retain honorary star status... though I'm not so sure about black holes. I'm not sure how to be both precise and comprehensible here, given that the definition of a star, like the definition of a planet, is a somewhat arbitrary extension from pre-telescopic tradition. --Matt McIrvin 15:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the beginning of the stellar structure section it states that stars are in equilibrium. Stars are definetly NOT in equilibrium. Inside stars, matter is constantly moving and flowing in different ways. That statement is like saying the Earth's weather is in equilibrium. --Dan 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is called "dynamic equilibrium". If a star is not a pulsating variable, for example, it's in equilibrium.
Umm... take a look at Dynamic equilibrium... a star is _not_ in dynamic equilibrium.

The majority of stars in our galaxy are red giants.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.9.36.189 (talk • contribs).

...red dwarfs actually. — RJH (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a possible solution to the definition problem, in "The Angry Aztecs" by Terry Deary (part of Horrible Histories series) a star is defined:

'A Star is a large celestial body, containing gravitationally contained hot gases, emitting electromagnetic radtation - especially light - as a result of nuclear reactions inside the star.'

I thought that could be used as long as its quoted, any ideas?

Elwayfan01 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph already covers this, so I'm unclear why a quote is needed. The word "plasma" is more accurate than "hot gases". Also the statement "containing gravitationally contained" is somewhat ugly writing. Personally I'd prefer not to use this. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heterosexual POV

In the history of this article, there was something called a "Heterosexual POV". What does this mean?? 66.32.244.71 00:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some of the more common classifications are O,B,A,F,G,K,M, and can perhaps be more easily remembered using the mnemonic "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me", invented by Annie Jump Cannon (1863-1941). (Variant; if you're a girl; change "girl" to "guy".)
became
Some of the more common classifications are O,B,A,F,G,K,M, and can perhaps be more easily remembered using the mnemonic "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me", invented by Annie Jump Cannon (1863-1941). (Variant; change "girl" to "guy".) --Tothebarricades.tk 01:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

This article uses billion, trillion, sextillion, etc. freely. It should be noted that this is using the short scale variant of these words, becuase they do have more than one meaning. Anyone mind if I add 109 to billion, etc, to clarify? Thanks, Ian Cairns 01:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] space travel?

I think it would be more relevant to describe the length of time it would take to get to Proxima Centauri using the fastest means currently available to humans (i.e. rocket, space shuttle, whatever.) You wouldn't take the TGV to the moon, either. Being that I am neither an astronomer nor a physicist, I will leave this in someone else's capable hands to decide.

I totally agree. I looked at this, and my first thought was, who on earth (so to speak) would take a train to Proxima Centauri, let alone stop accelerating at a mere 500 kph? The use of slow static speed, enabling big numbers (and exclamation marks) for 'wow factor', seems unnecessary. But maybe I'm just on another obsessive encyclopedic-style crusade of mine. ;) -- Wisq 18:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
You're right. The Orion drive could get there in a lifetime. But it would take a spacecraft designed for allowing births and such since the time requirement would be beyond a woman's fertile years. BioTube 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1

[edit] Alternating Colors?

I just noticed that stars (the bright ones, mostly) alternate colors. If my vision is correct, they flash a faint red, blue, and white. What causes this change in color?

This is an optical phenomenon due to atmospheric disturbances known as scintillation or (more commonly) twinkling. -- Xerxes 16:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf or not dwarf

Sorry for the confusion, Main sequence has the necessary information. Kosebamse 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our sun a dwarf star ???

The article states:

"Small (dwarf) stars such as the sun generally have essentially featureless disks with only small starspots. Larger (giant) stars have much bigger, much more obvious starspots, and also exhibit strong stellar limb-darkening (the brightness decreases towards the edge of the stellar disk)."

See [[1]].

Either 'dwarf' or 'such as the Sun' should be omitted, but I can't decide which of the two. 84.160.245.26 09:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? A reader unfamiliar with astronomy terminology might not realize that the Sun is a dwarf star. This is a fine place to introduce the two main sizes of star: dwarf and giant. -- Xerxes 15:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Because following that kind of logic, a red giant would be a dwarf either. Our sun will become a red giant and after that a white dwarf. But it is not yet neither a giant nor a dwarf. Can you cite any serious sources that consider our sun to be a dwarf star (and not only small in mass) ? 84.160.231.213 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
There's more than one kind of dwarf. That's why there are other adjectives that come before it. White dwarf, brown dwarf, red dwarf, black dwarf, main sequence dwarf. The sun is a yellow main sequence dwarf (specifically type G2V). -- Xerxes 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I see. So main sequence dwarfs are not a subset of main sequence stars but an alias name. Shouldn't this be explained a bit more in the article? I find it rather counterintuitive to think of a red giant as a dwarf although it has some logic that a giant by volume need not be a giant by mass. 84.160.231.213 08:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the article, ya loser, I could of done that myself. Just to check, I will try to say it again in my own words: our sun now is a yellow dwarf because of its luminosity (disregarding, for this very definition, volume and mass). It will become a red giant (gaining greatly in volume and luminosity but with constant mass) and then it will shrink in size and luminosity to become a white dwarf. Is this correct? 84.160.231.213 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds correct. Except that it's luminosity for a given temperature. It turns out what really counts is the radius of the star. Luminosity is basically a function of radius and temperature, so sorting by luminosity given a fixed temperature is equivalent to sorting by radius. -- Xerxes 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Dwarf" in this case is a legacy term in our star classification system, and is applied to stars of spectral type V (main sequence). This is true even for main sequence stars of much greater mass than the sun. There are also sub-dwarfs of spectral class VI--which are low metallicity. A white dwarf is a different animal, formed when a solar-mass star runs out of nuclear fuel, following the red giant phase. — RJH (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The sun is apparently an average sized star. Look it up elsewhere people!

[edit] O2V

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503464 -- Xerxes 21:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Temp/Bright

What kind of graph do you use oto show the temperature and brightness of stars. INFO NEEDED BADLY PLEASE HELP!!!!!!

I believe you are looking for Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. You might try Wikipedia:Reference desk for these kind of questions. DannyZ 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of individual astronomers

No offense to Dr. Figer, but does anyone else find it odd that the astronomers mentioned by name in this article are Hertzsprung, Russell, Eddington, Annie Jump Cannon, Flamsteed, Bayer, and Donald Figer? The first six are historical figures who made key contributions to stellar astronomy, but Figer is currently working. If Figer gets mentioned, shouldn't we have a paragraph about every moderately successful modern astronomer who works on stars? JustSayin 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

People will always plug their favorite people in Wiki articles; for every one you take out, you can expect two more the next week. At some point it becomes a question of who has the patience to remove all the extra junk while remaining sane. Feel free to help out. -- Xerxes 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stars - Birth of the Elements?

I've seen Carl Sagan's series: Cosmos, and need information about how the elements are formed. I can't quite remember how the elements are formed through the stars. a link, add-on to 'Stars' article, or explanation right here would be much appreciated.

A good starting place would be the Wikipedia articles on Stellar nucleosynthesis and Supernova nucleosynthesis. Both of these articles have links to other articles with more detailed information. --DannyZ 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The universe is 13.7 billion years old?!

A direct quote as of the odd finding from the article:

"Small stars (called red dwarfs) burn their fuel very slowly and last tens to hundreds of billions of years. At the end of their lives, they simply become dimmer and dimmer, fading into black dwarfs. However, since the lifespan of such stars is greater than the current age of the universe (13.7 billion years), no black dwarfs exist yet."

Unless someone can prove me wrong... I'll look into it, but I do not think scientists know the age.

Reeves 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just looked into it quickly on Wikipedia, even within it's own articles, the age is indefinite, even the article The Universe is uncertain. I think the wording should be changed.
Reeves 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The age of the universe is known to better than 2%. -- Xerxes 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Really... 2% accuracy, because I am in grade nine and I am on the subject right now, the given range is quite large 13.7 billion to 15 billion. >>>> I changed it, I swear, The Universe had a different number, new facts I guess, I'll continue to check it out.
Reeves 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, most school systems can only afford to update their textbooks once a decade. WMAP has the most accurate determination of the universe's age; its results are about 3 years old now. Try googling "WMAP" or check out WMAP for more information. -- Xerxes 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It took me long to reply, but I kinda gave up on the argument, I do now agree that the number is accurate to our understanding. Thank you though. By the way, schools out! -- Reeves 05:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, the number is correct. --Dan 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naked-eye stars

Somebody wanted a reference about the number of stars visible to the naked eye. The Bright Star Catalogue lists all stars of magnitude 6.5 or higher, which is roughly equivalent to the number of stars that are visible to an unaided eye under ideal condition. (The eye would probably have to be pretty close to ideal as well, I would imagine.) Version 5 of that catalogue has 9110 objects, including stars.[2] :-) — RJH (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will all stars eventually be gone?

I have a question that has popped up in my mind a few minutes ago, and thus has been bothering me since. The question is, considering the sun has a few billion years of life left... as is the case for most stars, what happens when they are gone? Surely new stars don't get developed, right? So does this mean, technically, that there is an "end of the universe"? Spencer Thomas 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's expected that the stars will pretty much die out.[3] We're already past the peak star production rate. They estimate that 20% of the useful matter in the universe has already been used up as fuel.[4]
There's a write-up on the topic of the end of the universe at "ultimate fate of the universe". But if the big bang was born of the collision of two universe M-branes, I like to think that the whole shebang may get endlessly repeated. *shrug* — RJH (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No all stars will not be gone as a matter of fact. As the elements become 'used up' as fuel, they will reach a heavy mass, and, under great gravity, and other conditions, begin to fission, creating smaller particles. The fact is, energy does not leave the universe as far as we know. Therefore, as more energy is released from these lighter elements, an instability will result and the larger elements will break down. This is also assuming that the universe crunches and then re-exapnds as another big bang. I cant say a second big bang because for all we know, there could have been a billion big bangs before us.

But it is very wrong to say that all stars will be gone. That is completely folly.


New stars certainly do form; they are forming right now. There may well be an end of the universe as it continues to expand, but not just because all the currently existing stars die out. thx1138 05:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes new stars will form. But the rate of star formation is gradually decreasing, and over an excedingly long period of time most of the fuel used by stars will be consumed. See heat death of the universe, for example. — RJH (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The universe gradually increases in entropy, so in an inconceivable amount of time the universe may well experience 'heat death' and stars will gradually wink out and die with none being formed, until there are none left. The universe will end up a silent, featureless sea of neutrinos for eternity. Maximum entropy. 81.151.208.35 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Convention

If you're interested please add your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Stars. Thanks AndrewRT - Talk 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

I added a link to an article talking about a recent study which showed the smallest observed stars had 8.3% of the mass of the Sun, which is about 87 times the mass of Jupiter. The article mentions that they could have detected smaller stars, but since they couldn't see any it seems like 8.3% is the minimum size for a star. I did another edit to remove the seemingly outdated references to Doradus and the minimum estimation of 75 Jupiters. Then RJHall reverted all my edits.

I would appreciate it if someone could change the section to include the latest information. Here's the article which talks about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5260008.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.48.36 (talk • contribs).

I apologize for the reverts. This article suffers from a lot of vandalism so it needs constant tending. There was an article in the New Scientist that clarified the topic slightly. The value of 87 times the mass of Jupiter is applicable to stars of very low metallicity. For stars with Sun-like metallicity, the cut-off is 75 Jupiter masses. So both values are correct; it's just that the BBC News reference didn't delve into the topic with sufficient detail. Anyway the section has been updated.
On the topic of the smallest star discovered, an ESO press release from 2005 says it's AB Dor C at 93 Jupiter masses. Another press release in NewScientist says it's OGLE-TR-122b at 96 Jupiter masses. They're pretty close. The reference is only a year old, so in what sense do you mean outdated? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)



mass is a type of size (and there's a precedent, calling the population of a city its size) but Google does seem to show that the size of a star is its dimensions--diameter or volume; sites checked included Britannica, Hubblesite. Encyclopedia Britannica seems to favor diameter (or radius). Note Answers.com uses mass (but that might just be copied from Wikipedia) and KidsAstronomy.com uses magnitude!!! (Galileo used size to mean brightness, before we knew what stars were, and since brighter stars did appear bigger in his imperfect optics). So, we should be careful how we use the size vs. mass language in the article.--Todd 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture Please! Take a look at this minute-long video comparing the sizes of planets and stars. Having a picture showing the scale of the differences would be very interesting.

[edit] Proxima Centauri's light...

Simba 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC): From the "Appearance and distribution" section, fifth paragraph, first sentence.
The nearest star to the Earth, apart from the Sun, is Proxima Centauri, which is 39.9 trillion (1012) kilometers, or 4.2 light years away (light from Proxima Centauri takes 4.2 years to reach Earth).
I'm no expert on such matters, but in another article on wikipedia (I thought it was light, but I just looked through and it's not there) I could've sworn I heard that light actually takes no time to get from where it is being emitted to where it is observed. In other words, light from Proxima Centauri doesn't take 4.2 years to reach Earth, it reaches Earth instantaneously. Am I mistaken?

Yes. Please see the speed of light article. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White to Brown to Black

This article says stars move from white dwarves to brown dwarves to black dwarves, yet I understand a brown dwarf to be formed from matter that conglomerates and never starts a sustained nuclear reaction. I've never heard of a white-to-brown-to-black sequence before.

I believe you may be correct. Perhaps the brown dwarf was intended in the sense of a body that does not have a fusion reaction the core? Or that it radiates primarily in the infrared? But the part stating "to brown dwarves" could likely be removed without harming the text. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The FAC

It was barely up there a week. How soon are these getting closed these days? Marskell 05:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was pretty brief compared to some I've seen. Perhaps they're trying to expedite the process? But no matter. The article has had some more improvements and is undergoing another PR, so I'll just try again after a judicious delay. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I felt a little bad for you, actually. You were ready and willing to work on it. I'm curious to find out myself what the current closing standards are. I've got one up myself and don't want to see it arbitrarily cut off. Marskell 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It might be because there was only one support amid all the comments. It's partially my fault - I objected but didn't get to strike out the addressed comments before it closed. I was surprised - RJHall seems so motivated, I thought the FAC would end up passing, even if it stayed for a while. I've been helping with the peer review, though, and I think it will pass its next FAC nomination when we reach that point. Pagrashtak 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I really appreciate all the work you've been willing to put into this article; it's in much better shape now. As Marskell mentioned, it was just a very fast FAC turn around. In the past there has been much more time to address FAC objections. — RJH (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an FA! Woo-hoo! — RJH (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensible

This article is far to complex and incomprehensible. It is written at a level appropriate for a university science student, not for the general public. It does not contain basic information as to what a star is.

My main criticism is the opening paragraph. In this paragraph we should learn that stars are spherical and give off light. We should learn that stars are visible in the night sky and that one particular star is the source of most energy on Earth, including daylight. We should learn that stars are grouped into galaxies.

I'm sure one can see what I'm driving at. --58.109.24.120 02:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The style of the entire article is physics-talk, which is fine with me, except that the article should at least begin with the kind of basic definition that you describe. Spebudmak 04:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Buhhh... well I guess we could always include a transwiki link to the wiktionary definition. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So everything should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. If we have to says stars are visible in the night sky we might as well assume that the user can't read either! Papermaker 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's difficult to please everybody. When I compare this article to the FA'd photon, for example, the star article seems pretty tractible for a lay audience, at least to me. But perhaps some focus is needed on the simple english version to communicate similar information at a very basic level? — RJH (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of people think stars are SO nice!

I don't think this sentance should be at the end of the first paragraph. It doesn't fit the style of the rest of the article. When I attempted to edit the sentance out, I could not find it between the words "life span' and "Astronomers determine", and when I went to preview edit ( without changing anything) the sentance was gone. But when I clicked on article, to see the change there the sentance 'A lot of people think stars are SO nice!" was still there.

I am very confused. Hopefully someone with more wiki or html knowledge than myself could make sure the sentance " A lot of people think stars are SO nice!" was actually deleted, or could explain to me what is happening.

~~Jocelyn

Its gone and has been gone for minutes now. Your browser is showing you a previous revision. Gdo01 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Clear your cache by pressing Ctrl-F5 (on a PC, I'm not sure about on a Mac). —Cuiviénen 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euro-centric

The "Observation history" section begins with the sentence "Stars have been important to every culture." It then proceeds to talk exclusively about observaions by European and American astronomers. If stars are important to other cultures then this should be elaborated upon. (Or, that sentence should be dropped.) Spebudmak 04:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is true, but most of the section is focused on the modern scientific observation of stars using telescopes, rather than philosophical speculation based on naked observation. So, as much as you may not like it, a good deal of the key elements of the scientific understanding of stars comes from observations by European and American astronomers. If you have facts to the contrary, I'd be very interested in seeing them. Hopefully in the future the new discovers will be from a broader base, but in this case I don't see a useful alternative. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the introductory sentence has little in common with the rest of the section. If the section is indeed about "modern scientific observation of stars using telescopes" then of course it should talk about the people who did those observations, who were for the most part European and American. I am not contesting that. However, the first sentence gives one the impression that the section will talk about the impact that the night sky had upon various cultures, which it certainly does not. So, that sentence should either be scrapped, or elaborated upon, in my opinion. Spebudmak 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well we agree to disagree then. A re-write would be satisfactory, but a deletion of that paragraph is unacceptible, at least to me. There needs to be at least some comment in there about the early use of stars. Anyway I tried to expand on the text. — RJH (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] by who's definition?

after the "planet's definition changed and omg!" "controversy" on the media many people wonder who establish standards and definitions in astronomy, an "a star is .. according to" in the beginning of the article would be useful imo. --87.194.72.129 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star FA

Giving a star to an article about stars. How fitting. JIP | Talk 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening section is getting trampled

The opening doesn't read like part of a high-quality, featured article tonight. Edits in recent days have muddied the intro. I can't figure out how to help clean up the section and maintain continuity, accessibility, and tone at the same time. --Dc3 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a contribution. I have reduced the process of a star to a single medium length sentence, leaving detail in the third paragraph. I have mentioned galaxies and the place of stars in the universe. The importance of stars has been taken from the 3rd paragraph and moved to the first. Elsewhere, I have removed repetition. --Dlatimer 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that there is a problem with over-editing of this article, especially the opening section ... there has also been a rash of vandalism that seems to have gotten worse since star was featured on the front page – I would rather have this article temporarily locked than to need 20 of us babysitting it 24/7 ... as it is now it seems like an entirely new article (especially the opening section) every time I go to read it ... what can be done to help this? Ukt-zero 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to help by adding still more editing--just for the first paragraph. Mostly I tried to broaden the intro and make it less technical, combining good ideas and nice phrases from Dlatimer and 58.109.24.120 (the one who called it Incomprehensible above). I don't think I got it quite right, yet, but I did my best for now, and I tried to be at least a little bold, before I got edit-fatigue. I think the vandalism has tapered off since the feature link expired--now you just have to deal with a couple of well-meaning neophytes like myself...Dc3 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes the opening paragraph looks good, although I had to disagree with the assertion that life would not be possible without stars—we can't really be sure of that. It's always possible that other forms of life exist that we don't yet understand. Thanks. RJH (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"luminous ball"... nice touch! --Dlatimer 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative nature of non-creationist star formation models

I believe it should be stated more prominently that non-creationist star models are very speculative. I cite the following in support: “We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. [5] Also, “In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen.” Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle,” Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394. [6] In addition, “For example, no one can explain how the stars—which are 15 times heftier than our sun—got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out.” Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit,” (Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356 ). [7] Lastly, “We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. [8] 136.183.154.15 03:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationist star-formation models are, of course, false. This is banned user "kdbuffalo" attempting to evade his ban. This address is likely to be blocked, but he may use others. --Robert Stevens 09:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I would say, rather, that they are non-scientific. It's always possible to concoct an extreme scenario under which a creationist viewpoint is "correct". But no scientific test has yet been found that can validate it. Otherwise, yes, I completely agree. The poster is attempting to turn scientific impartiality into evidence of falsehood. — RJH (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology removal

I've been browsing some of the wiki pages on individual stars. Some pages discuss the science of the star and nothing else, whereas other wiki pages discuss the science and the astrology of the star. Consistency is needed. I nominate removing all traces of astrology from these articles. If some astrology people want to maintain it, then it should be moved to a separate article. E.g., there should be a page about Aldebaran and another page about Aldebaran in astrology. I'm sorry I had to put this idea on the star talk page, but I didn't exactly want to put this idea on each stars' discussion page ;-) .--Just James 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Astrology has historical relevance and is closely associated with early astronomy. As long as the statements are factual and do not make non-scientific assertions I don't see a problem. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Very well, but I'm arguing for some consistency. Either each individual star article should discuss whatever astrology stuff about themselves or there should be separate pages for the stars that do have astrology stuff about themselves. It's like what has already been done to stars appearing in fiction. Separate pages have been made for that topic because not every star appears in a fictional text. So again I think that there should be, for example, pages for: Aldebaran, Aldebaran in fiction and Aldebaran in astrology. There is already a separate page for Aldebaran in fiction. The same should be done for astrology because not every star article has an astrology section (astrology may not have been disucssed for every star, particularly the minor stars).--Just James 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In cases where the fiction regarding an astronomical object has been moved to a separate page, usually there remains a reference to that content on the object page. (E.g. Andromeda_galaxy#Andromeda_Galaxy_in_fiction) This is if for no other reason than to direct people interested in that aspect of the topic to the proper page for editing. (Otherwise I tend to find that the information slowly gets added back in.)
For astrology, however, in some cases the information may be relevant to the object's etymology. In that case I think it's consistent with retention. But I certainly have no issue with a separate page providing expanded content regarding the astrological particulars. I'd just like to keep the astrology content that is specific to etymology, and the cultural and historical references. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life without stars

Is is theoretically possible? Could a lifeform of any kind survive in a universe without stars? Would they ultimately survive long enough to create their own sources of power? - 86.151.100.68 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Life without medium-size atoms is inconceivable.--Dlatimer 14:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Inconceivable or literally impossible? It being inconceivable implies it's only impossible in comparison to our own lives - 86.152.203.168 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Impossible is too strong a word--Robert Forward's Cheela have no atoms, and I do not think it to be too much a stretch. I suggest reading "What does a Martian Look Like?" by Martin Gardner and Jack Cohen.--Todd 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

In the first paragraph it says that "A star is an extremely large ball of luminous ball of plasma".... large ball of luminous ball? Is that right? I mean, it sounds weird, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.79.66.172 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Requesting semi-protect

I just counted, and in the last 50 edits over the past six days there have been 21 reverts. I propose that this page becomes semi-protected for the time being.--十八 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it—I tried before to get semi-protection, but it was only done for a brief interval. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have requested this page to be semi-protected now. I don't think it'll be declined.--十八 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is now semi-protected.--十八 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Good. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bet you find this Interesting?

I had a thought the other day. And tried to find this answer to this on Wikipedia and other sources. But as a complete layman became very confused, parsecs/light years ect. This is my thought, we (the human race) have been sending out RF signals of a reasonable strength since 1922, please correct me on this if I have this wrong. Based on this knowledge, I wondered how far and how many star like suns (G class stars) have these RF signals reached by this year, 2007 ? You know where I'm going with this thought, and yes maybe life is not restricted to G class stars, or maybe it is, or maybe only to G2V, and we all known G2V's are capable! Then there's the age of these stars, and then the metallic make up as well. I wish someone with the right knowledge would draw up a list of theses stars. And using the above knowledge. We could then break the list up into the most lightly to the most unlikely places that intelligent life may exist. And that have also received RF signals from us. I believe this list would be helpful to SETI, to reduce their listing down to size, so they can focus on a more broader range of RF signals. As I also believe the RF's they are searching are far too narrow, and I feel a lot of time and money is going to waist at SETI. If anyone can help me with this please do, maybe I've got this wrong as I'm just a layman. But in any case, post me something, its bugging me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.204.128 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

see here: List of nearest stars, this shows all stars within 5 parsecs (16.308 light-years). Patrick1982 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Early radio signals were weak (drawing only a few watts) and may have been drowned out by the solar radiation. However modern radar can operate at tens to hundreds of megawatt, so they may pick up our defense systems radars. The number of class-G stars reached by our transmitters increases roughly as the cube of the radius (=time), at least until it reaches the edges of the galactic disk at which point it increases more as the square of the radius. But this assumes that anybody is even listening. We've only been doing so for about 0.000 001% of the age of the Sun. — RJH (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

84.20.65.162 10:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[[Image:Example.y = x < gallery > Image:Example.jpg | Caption1Image:Example.jpg | Caption2 < / gallery > < sup > 2 < / sup > jpg]]

[edit] Edit requests

I suggest a slight change to the latest edit by 02:36, 8 April 2007 by Crescentnebula. In the sentence "Because of the relatively vast distances between stars in the outer regions of the galaxy...", replace "the outer regions" by "most regions". Timb66 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. That sentence sets up the context for the following sentence that then talks about where stars are closer together, astrologically speaking of course. Also, "most" is a weasle word, and we're trying to be specific as possible, espeically for an FA. I did however change "because of" to "due to" since I believe it is bad grammar to start sentences with because.--十八 10:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this sentence links to the following one, but I still think "outer regions" is misleading. To me it implies outskirts, but not necessarily the majority. It is certainly true that the stellar density in the vast majority of the galaxy (both disk and bulge) is too low for stellar collisions to occur with significant frequency. I don't think "most" is a weasel word in this context. It simply means "majority", something that is not implicit in "outer regions". In fact, "outer regions" is actually wrong given that many globular clusters are in the outer regions of the Galaxy. (I notice the page is no longer protected, but I thought I would discuss here before modifying the page) Timb66 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Timb66. In fact I'd go so far as to say "outside the core region" of the galaxy. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStar_9d82.html"