Definition of the sun's "death"?

Hi:

I just don't understand why the expansion of the sun into a red giant
would be classified as the sun's 'death'. As a red giant, the sun will
very much be alive as it is today. It will burn helium instead of the
hydrogen it burns today.

My definition of the "death of the sun", is when the sun ceases its
nuclear fusion. Fusion is what gives the sun its life.


Best,

Radium

On Jul 13, 12:33 am, Radium wrote:

I just don't understand why the expansion of the sun
into a red giant would be classified as the sun's 'death'.
...
My definition of the "death of the sun", is when the sun
ceases its nuclear fusion.

I agree; it's sloppy terminology. A better term might be
death throes. But even that I'd save for the truly
terminal phase when the Sun creates a planetary
nebula. The red-giant phase would better be called
old age.

Of course, stars continue to shine quite nicely even
after nuclear fusion has stopped. I would call a
white dwarf moribund rather than dead.

Dear tony_flanders:

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 13, 12:33 am, Radium wrote:

I just don't understand why the expansion of the sun
into a red giant would be classified as the sun's 'death'.
...
My definition of the "death of the sun", is when the sun
ceases its nuclear fusion.

I agree; it's sloppy terminology. A better term might be
death throes. But even that I'd save for the truly
terminal phase when the Sun creates a planetary
nebula. The red-giant phase would better be called
old age.

How about "menopausal"? ;)

Of course, stars continue to shine quite nicely even
after nuclear fusion has stopped. I would call a
white dwarf moribund rather than dead.

David A. Smith

On Jul 13, 6:09 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear tony_flanders:

wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 13, 12:33 am, Radium wrote:

I just don't understand why the expansion of the sun
into a red giant would be classified as the sun's 'death'.
...
My definition of the "death of the sun", is when the sun
ceases its nuclear fusion.

I agree; it's sloppy terminology. A better term might be
death throes. But even that I'd save for the truly
terminal phase when the Sun creates a planetary
nebula. The red-giant phase would better be called
old age.

How about "menopausal"? ;)

Of course, stars continue to shine quite nicely even
after nuclear fusion has stopped. I would call a
white dwarf moribund rather than dead.

David A. Smith

Why do we insist on using such anthropomorphic terminology anyway?
Objects in space don't get born, live, and then die, they transition
from one kind of object into another. When we apply the terms of
carbon based life forms to inanimate objects, we are being completely
arbitrary. Otherwise, when a super massive star collapses, why not
say, "A black hole is born!"?

Double-A

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:34:50 -0700, Double-A wrote:


Why do we insist on using such anthropomorphic terminology anyway?
Objects in space don't get born, live, and then die, they transition
from one kind of object into another. When we apply the terms of
carbon based life forms to inanimate objects, we are being completely
arbitrary. Otherwise, when a super massive star collapses, why not
say, "A black hole is born!"?

I've heard that last said many times.

It is in our nature to anthropomorphize our environment. And in fact, it
is perfectly reasonable (even from a scientific standpoint) to speak of
the birth, life, and death of a star. Stars don't exist forever in
either direction, even if their material does. I could argue that you
were never born, but just transformed from a different kind of object
g.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Radium wrote:
Hi:

I just don't understand why the expansion of the sun into a red giant
would be classified as the sun's 'death'. As a red giant, the sun will
very much be alive as it is today. It will burn helium instead of the
hydrogen it burns today.

I like "senescence". Big word, sounds good ;-)

My definition of the "death of the sun", is when the sun ceases its
nuclear fusion. Fusion is what gives the sun its life.

Qualified in that "life of a star" sense, as opposed to biological life,
I agree.


Shawn

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:55:54 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Fusion (after the radiation pressure of gravitational collapse) keeps
the star inflated against gravity... eventually gravity wins!

A fact that applies to people as well g.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jul 13, 7:43 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:34:50 -0700, Double-A wrote:

Why do we insist on using such anthropomorphic terminology anyway?
Objects in space don't get born, live, and then die, they transition
from one kind of object into another. When we apply the terms of
carbon based life forms to inanimate objects, we are being completely
arbitrary. Otherwise, when a super massive star collapses, why not
say, "A black hole is born!"?

I've heard that last said many times.

It is in our nature to anthropomorphize our environment. And in fact, it
is perfectly reasonable (even from a scientific standpoint) to speak of
the birth, life, and death of a star. Stars don't exist forever in
either direction, even if their material does. I could argue that you
were never born, but just transformed from a different kind of object
g.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com


And so I was, O enlightened one.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 13, 6:09 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
: wrote:
: Dear tony_flanders:
:
: wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
:
: On Jul 13, 12:33 am, Radium wrote:
:
: I just don't understand why the expansion of the sun
: into a red giant would be classified as the sun's 'death'.
: ...
: My definition of the "death of the sun", is when the sun
: ceases its nuclear fusion.
:
: I agree; it's sloppy terminology. A better term might be
: death throes. But even that I'd save for the truly
: terminal phase when the Sun creates a planetary
: nebula. The red-giant phase would better be called
: old age.
:
: How about "menopausal"? ;)
:
: Of course, stars continue to shine quite nicely even
: after nuclear fusion has stopped. I would call a
: white dwarf moribund rather than dead.
:
: David A. Smith
:
: Why do we insist on using such anthropomorphic terminology anyway?
: Objects in space don't get born, live, and then die, they transition
: from one kind of object into another. When we apply the terms of
: carbon based life forms to inanimate objects, we are being completely
: arbitrary. Otherwise, when a super massive star collapses, why not
: say, "A black hole is born!"?

Black hole... a snake swallowing its own tail.

Possibly a neutron body... the nuclei, protons and electrons
compressed under gravity at the core; but at the surface, cold
evaporation to leave huge clouds of hydrogen light years across
and talking billions of years to form,

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070106.html

which slowly absorb radiation from other stars before condensing
again to complete the cycle, the conclusion being a universe that always
was and always will be.

The core? Planets such as the Earth would fit the description
rather well with its abundance of heavy elements.

"Beginning" and "ending" are also anthropomorphisms, yet life itself
is cyclic, energy driven, so why should not the universe be so as well?

Big Bangs and black holes are rather silly theories, that's all.
If there were a big bang there'd be a detectable point from which
everything radiated, yet even the CMBR is homogeneous.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061007.html

And then there is this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061008.html

The evidence for either wild conjecture simply isn't there, we
must examine the universe from ALL the data before we can
call ourselves scientists.

In article LADli.26938$Fc.8903@attbi_s21,
Sam Wormley wrote:

snip

Your book has an excellent diagram on page 459 relating the original
star mass to that of the final core mass (core mass being the mass of
whats left of the star at the end of its evolutionary processes).

What book is that? I assume your posting was taken from class notes --
what course?

--
Odysseus