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.

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

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

In article , Odysseus wrote:
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?

Glad I wasn't the only one wondering about this. I looked at the thread
and other possibly related threads and couldn't work out what the
reference to "your book" was all about. I'd like to find out as well.

In article , Odysseus wrote:
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?

Google can be so useful sometimes. It's a direct quote from:

http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homew...19/homework.ch.
18-19.html