Our star has a sibling...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 12:14 AM
Our star has a sibling...
I haven't seen this posted on here, so sorry if there's already a thread on this. But I found this absolutely fascinating.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/05/08/su...-astronomy

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Sam's post
17-05-2014, 12:54 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
"That could help us understand why we are here.” ... presumably is meant geoastrographically rather than philosophically.

Fascinating indeed.

[Image: spock_fascinating.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
17-05-2014, 01:05 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
Thanks for posting this!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 05:22 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
Very interesting!

Although I am inclined to agree with one of the comments in the article; I wonder if it is convenient to use biological terms to describe non-biological entities. I am sure that multiple stars can coalesce from the same huge gas cloud, but I am not sure stars can be said to have brothers or sisters. Is there any English word that conveys the notion of common origin without conveying the notion of reproduction and offspring? I don't know, maybe the sun and HD 162826 are co-original stars, or something like that.

Thanks for the link. Have a good one!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 05:48 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
It's not just about a common origin, but also about a common composition of and ratios of elements. This finding is useful for tracking backwards and finding our origins, but is also useful to compare the development of related solar systems. I think the "sister" analogy is fairly apt.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
17-05-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
(17-05-2014 05:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It's not just about a common origin, but also about a common composition of and ratios of elements.
I think I understand what you are saying, that is kind of what I meant when I mentioned stars coalescing from the same gas cloud.

(17-05-2014 05:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  This finding is useful for tracking backwards and finding our origins, but is also useful to compare the development of related solar systems. I think the "sister" analogy is fairly apt.
And why not brother? Are other stars in the galaxy cousins of the sun? And if two stars with common ancestry collide, is that a family reunion?

I don't know; I see how I can take those words and expressions metaphorically, but metaphors are open to interpretation and they may lead to misunderstandings. They are great in many scopes such poetry, but I wonder if they are convenient in science.

Nonetheless, if you like calling stars sisters, call them sisters by all means; I'm only reflecting about the reasons why I am little inclined to do the same. How other people talk is for their brains to decide, not for mine. In any case, I agree in that the finding is very interesting and potentially very enlightening; anything that may help us understand where to look for habitable planets can be very useful, should life on this one ever become too difficult.

Have a good time!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
17-05-2014, 09:08 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
(17-05-2014 06:43 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 05:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It's not just about a common origin, but also about a common composition of and ratios of elements.
I think I understand what you are saying, that is kind of what I meant when I mentioned stars coalescing from the same gas cloud.

(17-05-2014 05:48 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  This finding is useful for tracking backwards and finding our origins, but is also useful to compare the development of related solar systems. I think the "sister" analogy is fairly apt.
And why not brother? Are other stars in the galaxy cousins of the sun? And if two stars with common ancestry collide, is that a family reunion?

I don't know; I see how I can take those words and expressions metaphorically, but metaphors are open to interpretation and they may lead to misunderstandings. They are great in many scopes such poetry, but I wonder if they are convenient in science.

Nonetheless, if you like calling stars sisters, call them sisters by all means; I'm only reflecting about the reasons why I am little inclined to do the same. How other people talk is for their brains to decide, not for mine. In any case, I agree in that the finding is very interesting and potentially very enlightening; anything that may help us understand where to look for habitable planets can be very useful, should life on this one ever become too difficult.

Have a good time!

I don't think it matters at all...

Both stars share the same chemistry, meaning they were both formed in the same "stellar nursery", which in turn would be the product of earlier stars, almost like parents. So I think the term is perfectly apt.

We also use terms like "birth", "death" and "life cycle" when describing stars... So this is nothing new.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
17-05-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
Hello Sam, how are you?

(17-05-2014 09:08 AM)Sam Wrote:  I don't think it matters at all...
And I'm perfectly happy with that, you don't have to think it matters at all.

My view is different; not better, but different. I think it is relevant because the more metaphors we use, the less likely we are to understand each other, but I may be wrong; it may be completely irrelevant so please don't take my choices as a demand that you follow suit.

(17-05-2014 09:08 AM)Sam Wrote:  Both stars share the same chemistry, meaning they were both formed in the same "stellar nursery", which in turn would be the product of earlier stars, almost like parents. So I think the term is perfectly apt.
Maybe not that perfectly, if you have used the adverb "almost" out of your own choice. If you really thought the term is perfectly apt, the expression "like parents" would have been appropriate without the need to bring in that adverb, don't you think? The fact that you've modified it using a word meaning "very nearly", as well as placing the debatable expression "stellar nursery" between quotation marks, suggests to me that you view this aptitude as slightly less than perfect; very nearly perfect but not completely perfect. Would that be the case?

But I think I may see what you mean. Stars explode and their remains may coalesce into new stars, so is that not a kind of non-biological reproduction? Well, I guess that would depend on what we each understand by "biological" and "reproduction". The big difference, in my view, lies in the notion of usage.

Star explosion ultimately occurs as a result of the tremendous amount of energy contained within the matter constituting the star. Star formation occurs largely as a result of gravitational interactions between nearby objects moving at relatively low speeds. But can it be said that stars use all this energy in order to increase their structural stability? Living beings have the ability to use information to change their own behaviour, in order to prevent their decay over time, but I don't think stars have such ability; I am not sure stars can be said to use anything.

(17-05-2014 09:08 AM)Sam Wrote:  We also use terms like "birth", "death" and "life cycle" when describing stars... So this is nothing new.
I'm sure you and many other people use those terms, but I try not to. I talk about the assembly and disassembly of complex structures rather than their birth and death, and I talk about stellar existence cycles rather than their life cycles, because I don't understand life and existence as conveying the same concept. For example, would you say that Mt. Everest lives between China and Nepal?

Or maybe living and existing do imply the same notion; I cannot say I truly know. I'm not trying to change a tradition in nomenclature, simply clarifying why I don't follow it.

Thanks, though, for a very interesting thread. Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
17-05-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
:O


There is actual knowlege that can come out of Texas???????!!

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Germans are coming's post
17-05-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Our star has a sibling...
(17-05-2014 10:10 AM)living thing Wrote:  Hello Sam, how are you?

(17-05-2014 09:08 AM)Sam Wrote:  I don't think it matters at all...
And I'm perfectly happy with that, you don't have to think it matters at all.

My view is different; not better, but different. I think it is relevant because the more metaphors we use, the less likely we are to understand each other, but I may be wrong; it may be completely irrelevant so please don't take my choices as a demand that you follow suit.

(17-05-2014 09:08 AM)Sam Wrote:  Both stars share the same chemistry, meaning they were both formed in the same "stellar nursery", which in turn would be the product of earlier stars, almost like parents. So I think the term is perfectly apt.
Maybe not that perfectly, if you have used the adverb "almost" out of your own choice. If you really thought the term is perfectly apt, the expression "like parents" would have been appropriate without the need to bring in that adverb, don't you think? The fact that you've modified it using a word meaning "very nearly", as well as placing the debatable expression "stellar nursery" between quotation marks, suggests to me that you view this aptitude as slightly less than perfect; very nearly perfect but not completely perfect. Would that be the case?

But I think I may see what you mean. Stars explode and their remains may coalesce into new stars, so is that not a kind of non-biological reproduction? Well, I guess that would depend on what we each understand by "biological" and "reproduction". The big difference, in my view, lies in the notion of usage.

Star explosion ultimately occurs as a result of the tremendous amount of energy contained within the matter constituting the star. Star formation occurs largely as a result of gravitational interactions between nearby objects moving at relatively low speeds. But can it be said that stars use all this energy in order to increase their structural stability? Living beings have the ability to use information to change their own behaviour, in order to prevent their decay over time, but I don't think stars have such ability; I am not sure stars can be said to use anything.

(17-05-2014 09:08 AM)Sam Wrote:  We also use terms like "birth", "death" and "life cycle" when describing stars... So this is nothing new.
I'm sure you and many other people use those terms, but I try not to. I talk about the assembly and disassembly of complex structures rather than their birth and death, and I talk about stellar existence cycles rather than their life cycles, because I don't understand life and existence as conveying the same concept. For example, would you say that Mt. Everest lives between China and Nepal?

Or maybe living and existing do imply the same notion; I cannot say I truly know. I'm not trying to change a tradition in nomenclature, simply clarifying why I don't follow it.

Thanks, though, for a very interesting thread. Have fun!

I put those words in quotation marks, because they are quotations... I'm yet to see an astronomy book that doesn't use those terms when describing stars.

Metaphors are used to simplify complex topics, they're also used poetically. Anyone can see that there's a life like quality to stellar processes. Birth, growth, life, death, reproduction and evolution.

Only someone terminally stupid would be confused by such simple metaphors.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: