![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This phrase in the introduction is not true:
"a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. "
The energy created by the thermonuclear fusion in the core of the star do not creates light that traverses te star's interior. A star shines because it is hot, and radiates light with a spectra that depends on its temperature (as do all the bodies in the universe). The light created in the core of the star is used to prevent the star to collapse into a point, and to heat the outer material up to several thousands of Kelvin degrees. Then, the star emits light due to its temperature (as a black body).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.170.106 ( talk • contribs)
The energy released by thermonuclear fusion works to prevent further gravitational contract, but it is this history of gravitational contraction that causes the star to shine, this article is misleading in that it appears to indicate that nuclear fusion is the cause of the star shining. Check specifically page 3 of pdf I have referenced. http://www.astro.uu.nl/~pols/education/binaries/lnotes/Binaries_2007.pdf IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The way it's worded at the start indicates that the energy from thermonuclear fusion is directly released after traversing the star. I think most people would agree that any body that releases it's own source of visible photons "shines" and nuclear fusion is not a requirement for something to "shine". IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a bit of back and forth about a recent result regarding the Earth's fate (in the Post-main sequence section). I loathe to accept a new paper (even in a journal) as fact, and I don't think the fate of the Earth or the exact maximum radius of the Sun as a red giant is at all settled.
However, is the fate of the Earth even worth including in this article? Mentioning the Sun as an example star is surely useful, but I'm not sure we need to include the Earth's fate (especially since it's also discussed in Sun, where I think it's more relevant). Ashill ( talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
just saying, here is a list os the colors of stars, from left to right they are in order by their tempature(highest temp. to lowest temp.), yellow, blue, red. I bet you thought red would be first right!? I learned this 2 years ago in 4th grade when a planatarium came to our school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensnice ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
A user put the reflist in a box. I undid the revision because it makes it much harder to see read the references, particularly on a mobile device. ASHill ( talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"...a star shines because thermonuclear fusion in its core releases energy that traverses the star's interior..." I question the use of "energy" cause it seems to mean that energy is a kind of "thing or object" by itself radiating from the core and it does not well explained why the star shines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiloa ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Chiloa ( talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)-- Chiloa ( talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply use "form of electromagnetic radiation" rather than "energy"?-- Chiloa ( talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this sentence. Is the star really "required" to maintain a rate of nuclear fusion? The rate of nuclear fusion is surely determined by pressure and temperature, is it not? Causality, right? This sentence makes it sound as if the star actively increases its temperature and luminosity to maintain its rate of fusion, which, as an inanimate object, doesn't make much sense - it seems backwards. Could somebody either correct or explain this in the article? Thanks. AJKGORDON «» 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Should a sub-section on "Planetary system" be added to the Characteristics section? While it is not really a physical characteristic of a star, it is related to the star's evolutionary history. Thus it might be worthwhile summarizing. (I'm not sure whether "Planetary system" is the best name, as some may only consist of a debris disk, for example.)— RJH ( talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The opening was desperately in need of a re-write, please do not edit war over this, explain whatever POV you may have here on the talk page. the opening claimed stars are massive and failed to point out they are part of a solar system in many cases and part of a galaxy in many cases, removing such added information is clearly unhelpful. My own perception is that the lead was one of the most badly written I have come across on wikipedia and I am mystified as to why one user would revert back to the poor opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph irritates me, for something like shooting-mites-with-cannon-logic:
Strictly the third sentence fails, and the second sentence is far irrelevant. If Medusa is a myth, that doesn't mean the eye of Medusa is a myth. That means that the eye of Medusa is a mythical representation, but the eye of Medusa has no elaborate story that antique Greeks told their antique Greek children. And how can the eye of Medusa be a soul of the dead or be a god? What's the point, with that sentence? A sentence including myth, Medusa, eye of Medusa and mythical representation is most certainly needed but the paragraph might need some reformulation in order to get the logic right. ... said: Rursus ( Bork, Bork!) 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This sentence is probably factually wrong:
I'll make a try to find a source (prob Tirion/Uranometria 2000.0) for that Lalande invented this numbering, adding it to his French version of the Flamsteed catalogue. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 10:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Star From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the astronomical object. For other uses, see Star (disambiguation).
By heavy I mean elements heavier than Fe-56 that don't get produced inside stellar cores. As the heavier nuclei are less tightly bound than the Fe nucleus, the dense core environment tends to make them slide back to iron when produced by chance. I am not a good enough in the element abundancy subject but aren't these crazy heavy elements mostly produced during the blow-up of dying Suns(like novae, etc.)? Correct me if I am wrong.
The relation E = mc^2 says that mass and energy are two different manifestations of the same thing and only exist together, so it is not correct to say one is converted into the other. We should re-word that part of the article (under the heading "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways".) 69.140.12.180 ( talk) 03:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Nightvid
They are indeed different manifestations of the same thing, though we have not named that "thing". We have named the manifestations, mass and energy, and in so doing have made it explicit that they are different things. A diamond and a lump of coal are two different manifestations of the same thing, the point is in the conversion, the cause and effects. Ninahexan ( talk) 03:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In "Characteristics" section, under "Chemical Composition" subheading, the first sentence says "When stars form they are composed of about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium, as measured by mass". This is wrong. The reference given is an unrelated press release from ESA. These percentages are for the current H and He content of the Sun, and not of past composition of the Sun during its formation or of another star.
(Too bad I cannot remove the false information. Wikipedia is not editable anymore unless I sign in. A topic on which so much scientific information is available on the web contains unforgivable mistakes. It seems 10 year olds can edit wiki articles so long as they sign in, while scientists cannot unless they provide their personal info. It seems the best way to create an encyclopedic database.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.172.209 ( talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the section of Star designations treats myths erroneously.
1. Stars have no myths by themselves, in a few cases the brightest star got the name that originally belonged to an entire constellation, such as Capella (only an independent constellation in the antiquity), Arcturus and Procyon, but the attached image "little she-goat", "bear-watcher" and "fore-dog", mostly belonged to an entire constellation.
2. It also seems, among others from J. H. Rogers' investigations, that the image was primary for the constellations, and the myth was something borrowed from the culture and attached in order to fit to the image.
This stars-representing-souls stuff and individual-stars-having-myths stuff seems to be extrapolations without any factual foundation. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the recent re-organization primarily because the original article had a certain explanatory flow that was disrupted by the section relocations. I think the article should explain certain facts before using them in a description. For example, the existence of white dwarfs is explained in the section on formation and evolution before their classification is listed. If you reverse the order, then the reader is left wondering what is a white dwarf... up until it is explained. This flow was created in order to satisfy the FAC.— RJH ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's one possible re-organization that would maintain a sequence of explanation while including sub-groupings in the ToC:
What do you think?— RJH ( talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
1.sun 2.sirius 3.pollux 4.arcturus 5.aldebaran 6.rigel 7.pistol star 8.antares 9.mu cephei 10.vy canis majoris-is a hypergiant star —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.37.91 ( talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
rv mass culling of "See also" links from an FA page. Please discuss on talk page.
Considering I'm bringing the page to being within guidelines, I wonder "why not"?... -- Izno ( talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There are several references to the Carbon, Neon, Oxygen escalation as fusion happens at higher temperatures in the core. The escalation part is fine, but Neon follows Oxygen in the periodic table. Should the sequence be Carbon, Oxygen, Neon? Cyreenik ( talk) 21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems out of place as a "see also" in a scientific article. I removed it, but that edit was reverted. What are people's thoughts on this? Throwaway85 ( talk) 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. I want to just remind you that the star portal has nominated for featured status. Feel free to give comment here. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 08:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This addition is not about the effect of stars on nebulae but of a significant discovery with regards to how stars eliminate the material surrounding it during the star formation process. Please read the article first to understand the importance and relevancy of this new discovery. Feel free to improve on the wording of the text but this information is of high relevance. It is at par with the inclusion of Bok globules and Herbig-Haro objects. The phenomenon still has no specific name solely due to its nature of being recently discovered Herschel telescope provides new glimpse at the end of star-forming process. GaussianCopula ( talk) 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
During translation of this article I encountered a problem. In section " Massive stars" we can read:
"Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy. Likewise, since they are more tightly bound than all lighter nuclei, energy cannot be released by fission."
Article about iron states however that:
The most abundant iron isotope 56Fe is of particular interest to nuclear scientists. A common misconception is that this isotope represents the most stable nucleus possible, and that it thus would be impossible to perform fission or fusion on 56Fe and still liberate energy. This is not true, as both 62Ni and 58Fe are more stable, being the most stable nuclei. However, since 56Ni is much more easily produced from lighter nuclei in the alpha process in nuclear reactions in supernovae (see silicon burning process), nickel-56 (14 alpha particles) is the endpoint of fusion chains inside extremely massive stars, since addition of another alpha particle would result in zinc-60, which requires a great deal more energy. This nickel-56, which has a half-life of about 6 days, is therefore made in quantity in these stars, but soon decays by two successive positron emissions within supernova decay products in the supernova remnant gas cloud, to first radioactive cobalt-56, and then stable iron-56. This last nuclide is therefore common in the universe, relative to other stable metals of approximately the same atomic weight.
and
"Nuclei of iron atoms have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon, surpassed only by the nickel isotope 62Ni. This is formed by nuclear fusion in stars. Although a further tiny energy gain could be extracted by synthesizing 62Ni, conditions in stars are unsuitable for this process to be favored. Elemental distribution on Earth greatly favors iron over nickel, and also presumably in supernova element production.
Iron-56 is the heaviest stable isotope produced by the alpha process in stellar nucleosynthesis; heavier elements than iron and nickel require a supernova for their formation. Iron is the most abundant element in the core of red giants, and is the most abundant metal in iron meteorites and in the dense metal cores of planets such as Earth."
It suggests that the iron nuclei isn't the most tightly bound of all, and the final product of stable stellar nucleosynthesis is in fact nickel, not iron. Link form "extremely massive stars" leads to "population III stars", which "have not yet been observed directly" and "astronomers consider Population III to be something of a mystery" - so what is the source of this information about nickel being produced?
Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seems that someone is here wrong, and I wish to know who. Thanks in advance for your help. 87.207.144.160 ( talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 23 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Wired is not qualified to give legal opinions, and cannot be cited to support them. – Smyth\ talk 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the editor's edits. Something doesn't smell right, what with him claiming "NPOV" on a featured article. I find that highly dubious. Further, the editor was requested to appear on the talk page here sometime yesterday but he did not do so. He's pushing a point, I think. -- Izno ( talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you being shouted down? No. You're being told a) that this article is the wrong place to be arguing about it, and b) that currently you are in a dispute even on Star designation, which is the direct parent to the article you wrote (and the child of this article). You want to argue about it, well and good. But WEIGHT suggests that you are doing so in the wrong place, and the behavioral guidelines suggest that you are doing so at the wrong time.
Re RJ: You're better fixed to assess the sources than I, so I'll let you handle that if necessary. -- Izno ( talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is what appears to be the statement of policy from the IAU:
I think this can probably be taken as the consensus view of "many astronomers".
The following source documents where a specific astronomer, Astronomer Bob Martino, Perkins Observatory at Ohio Wesleyan University, called the ISR practice a scam:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I think this is the Times article source for at least some of the Cecil Adams article, although it is a bit dated:
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)It is an interesting read. But note that in both cases, the use of the word "scam" and "fraud" are particular to the ISR, rather than the more general case.
Here is a related article:
I think we can re-craft the paragraph out of this and similar material. The existing Lyall & Larsen (2009) cite provides a reference for the IAU's status of "international recognition", and the Cecil Adams cite provides further reading. — RJH ( talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's I'll throw out a first draft of a re-write:
Let me know what you find unsatisfactory about this.— RJH ( talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
How about "Such a practice, which has been largely discontinued, has been labeled a scam and a fraud by some, including by members of the astronomical community, and others view private company star naming, in it's current form, as a legal activity" Glennconti ( talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{Deindent} I've modified and reordered the paragraph slightly so it is more specific and logically ordered.— RJH ( talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a second revision that attempts to address above concerns:
Any concerns?— RJH ( talk) 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Extraterrestrial objects are under the juristiction of Space law, a form of International Law. However no laws exist which pertain to star naming, so the industry is currently unregulated. IAU designations are based on scientific convention as there is no legal authority which covers this matter." [1] Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 04:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there no page on wikipedia that looks at the socio / cultural aspects of stars? Stars are key in numerous mythologies (Aboriginal creation stories, star of bethlehem etc..) and people spend money on unscientific pursuits (naming as above, astrology, etc.). Is there any page that brings this together? I can't find anything on the disambig page. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
According to NASA, the first sentence of this article is wrong. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/star_worldbook.html
"A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity." - Wikipedia
"The sun and most other stars are made of gas and a hot, gaslike substance known as plasma. But some stars, called white dwarfs and neutron stars, consist of tightly packed atoms or subatomic particles. These stars are therefore much more dense than anything on Earth." - NASA Snowleopard100 ( talk) 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
the line "The surface temperature of a main sequence star is determined by the rate of energy production at the core and the radius of the star and is often estimated from the star's color index" cites the source http://web.archive.org/web/20070626090138/http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s5.htm . This reference does not offer anything to verify the claim that the surface temperature is determined by the nuclear energy production nor radius. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be of interest if this article quoted the approximate number of stars in the universe. The new count approximation is 300 sextillion. Can we add this as referenced by http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131729046 Glennconti ( talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The WP article HE 1523-0901 only calls this the oldest star in the galaxy. Not the oldest star. As of Oct 2010 the most distant (oldest) object was a galaxy UDFy-38135539 http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpps/news/astronomers-discover-oldest-most-distant-galaxy-dpgonc-20101021-fc_10210876 Is this something worthy of an article update? Glennconti ( talk) 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
sphere instead of ball. DARREN EVANS 10:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I don't want to open up a whole can of worms again. But, the article currently reads "This ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud,[46][47][48][49]" I would like it to say "This discontinued ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud,[46][47][48][49]" ISR has not been claiming to officially name stars for over ten years as per reference [49] and their current website FAQ which says:
Q: Is my Star Name "officially" recognized? A: No. We offer our service services as a unique gift idea. All stars are numbered and we offer the gift idea of putting a name on that actual numbered star. The name is recorded in our book Your Place in the Cosmos© and the book is listed with the US Copyright Office. However, the scientific community does not recognize our star names.
Yes what they did back then was deceptive but do we still need to keep beating a dead horse? Can't we at least say that the offending practice has been discontinued? Glennconti ( talk) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This phrase in the introduction is not true:
"a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. "
The energy created by the thermonuclear fusion in the core of the star do not creates light that traverses te star's interior. A star shines because it is hot, and radiates light with a spectra that depends on its temperature (as do all the bodies in the universe). The light created in the core of the star is used to prevent the star to collapse into a point, and to heat the outer material up to several thousands of Kelvin degrees. Then, the star emits light due to its temperature (as a black body).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.170.106 ( talk • contribs)
The energy released by thermonuclear fusion works to prevent further gravitational contract, but it is this history of gravitational contraction that causes the star to shine, this article is misleading in that it appears to indicate that nuclear fusion is the cause of the star shining. Check specifically page 3 of pdf I have referenced. http://www.astro.uu.nl/~pols/education/binaries/lnotes/Binaries_2007.pdf IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The way it's worded at the start indicates that the energy from thermonuclear fusion is directly released after traversing the star. I think most people would agree that any body that releases it's own source of visible photons "shines" and nuclear fusion is not a requirement for something to "shine". IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a bit of back and forth about a recent result regarding the Earth's fate (in the Post-main sequence section). I loathe to accept a new paper (even in a journal) as fact, and I don't think the fate of the Earth or the exact maximum radius of the Sun as a red giant is at all settled.
However, is the fate of the Earth even worth including in this article? Mentioning the Sun as an example star is surely useful, but I'm not sure we need to include the Earth's fate (especially since it's also discussed in Sun, where I think it's more relevant). Ashill ( talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
just saying, here is a list os the colors of stars, from left to right they are in order by their tempature(highest temp. to lowest temp.), yellow, blue, red. I bet you thought red would be first right!? I learned this 2 years ago in 4th grade when a planatarium came to our school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensnice ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
A user put the reflist in a box. I undid the revision because it makes it much harder to see read the references, particularly on a mobile device. ASHill ( talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"...a star shines because thermonuclear fusion in its core releases energy that traverses the star's interior..." I question the use of "energy" cause it seems to mean that energy is a kind of "thing or object" by itself radiating from the core and it does not well explained why the star shines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiloa ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Chiloa ( talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)-- Chiloa ( talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply use "form of electromagnetic radiation" rather than "energy"?-- Chiloa ( talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this sentence. Is the star really "required" to maintain a rate of nuclear fusion? The rate of nuclear fusion is surely determined by pressure and temperature, is it not? Causality, right? This sentence makes it sound as if the star actively increases its temperature and luminosity to maintain its rate of fusion, which, as an inanimate object, doesn't make much sense - it seems backwards. Could somebody either correct or explain this in the article? Thanks. AJKGORDON «» 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Should a sub-section on "Planetary system" be added to the Characteristics section? While it is not really a physical characteristic of a star, it is related to the star's evolutionary history. Thus it might be worthwhile summarizing. (I'm not sure whether "Planetary system" is the best name, as some may only consist of a debris disk, for example.)— RJH ( talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The opening was desperately in need of a re-write, please do not edit war over this, explain whatever POV you may have here on the talk page. the opening claimed stars are massive and failed to point out they are part of a solar system in many cases and part of a galaxy in many cases, removing such added information is clearly unhelpful. My own perception is that the lead was one of the most badly written I have come across on wikipedia and I am mystified as to why one user would revert back to the poor opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph irritates me, for something like shooting-mites-with-cannon-logic:
Strictly the third sentence fails, and the second sentence is far irrelevant. If Medusa is a myth, that doesn't mean the eye of Medusa is a myth. That means that the eye of Medusa is a mythical representation, but the eye of Medusa has no elaborate story that antique Greeks told their antique Greek children. And how can the eye of Medusa be a soul of the dead or be a god? What's the point, with that sentence? A sentence including myth, Medusa, eye of Medusa and mythical representation is most certainly needed but the paragraph might need some reformulation in order to get the logic right. ... said: Rursus ( Bork, Bork!) 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This sentence is probably factually wrong:
I'll make a try to find a source (prob Tirion/Uranometria 2000.0) for that Lalande invented this numbering, adding it to his French version of the Flamsteed catalogue. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 10:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Star From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the astronomical object. For other uses, see Star (disambiguation).
By heavy I mean elements heavier than Fe-56 that don't get produced inside stellar cores. As the heavier nuclei are less tightly bound than the Fe nucleus, the dense core environment tends to make them slide back to iron when produced by chance. I am not a good enough in the element abundancy subject but aren't these crazy heavy elements mostly produced during the blow-up of dying Suns(like novae, etc.)? Correct me if I am wrong.
The relation E = mc^2 says that mass and energy are two different manifestations of the same thing and only exist together, so it is not correct to say one is converted into the other. We should re-word that part of the article (under the heading "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways".) 69.140.12.180 ( talk) 03:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Nightvid
They are indeed different manifestations of the same thing, though we have not named that "thing". We have named the manifestations, mass and energy, and in so doing have made it explicit that they are different things. A diamond and a lump of coal are two different manifestations of the same thing, the point is in the conversion, the cause and effects. Ninahexan ( talk) 03:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In "Characteristics" section, under "Chemical Composition" subheading, the first sentence says "When stars form they are composed of about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium, as measured by mass". This is wrong. The reference given is an unrelated press release from ESA. These percentages are for the current H and He content of the Sun, and not of past composition of the Sun during its formation or of another star.
(Too bad I cannot remove the false information. Wikipedia is not editable anymore unless I sign in. A topic on which so much scientific information is available on the web contains unforgivable mistakes. It seems 10 year olds can edit wiki articles so long as they sign in, while scientists cannot unless they provide their personal info. It seems the best way to create an encyclopedic database.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.172.209 ( talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the section of Star designations treats myths erroneously.
1. Stars have no myths by themselves, in a few cases the brightest star got the name that originally belonged to an entire constellation, such as Capella (only an independent constellation in the antiquity), Arcturus and Procyon, but the attached image "little she-goat", "bear-watcher" and "fore-dog", mostly belonged to an entire constellation.
2. It also seems, among others from J. H. Rogers' investigations, that the image was primary for the constellations, and the myth was something borrowed from the culture and attached in order to fit to the image.
This stars-representing-souls stuff and individual-stars-having-myths stuff seems to be extrapolations without any factual foundation. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the recent re-organization primarily because the original article had a certain explanatory flow that was disrupted by the section relocations. I think the article should explain certain facts before using them in a description. For example, the existence of white dwarfs is explained in the section on formation and evolution before their classification is listed. If you reverse the order, then the reader is left wondering what is a white dwarf... up until it is explained. This flow was created in order to satisfy the FAC.— RJH ( talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's one possible re-organization that would maintain a sequence of explanation while including sub-groupings in the ToC:
What do you think?— RJH ( talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
1.sun 2.sirius 3.pollux 4.arcturus 5.aldebaran 6.rigel 7.pistol star 8.antares 9.mu cephei 10.vy canis majoris-is a hypergiant star —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.37.91 ( talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
rv mass culling of "See also" links from an FA page. Please discuss on talk page.
Considering I'm bringing the page to being within guidelines, I wonder "why not"?... -- Izno ( talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There are several references to the Carbon, Neon, Oxygen escalation as fusion happens at higher temperatures in the core. The escalation part is fine, but Neon follows Oxygen in the periodic table. Should the sequence be Carbon, Oxygen, Neon? Cyreenik ( talk) 21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems out of place as a "see also" in a scientific article. I removed it, but that edit was reverted. What are people's thoughts on this? Throwaway85 ( talk) 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. I want to just remind you that the star portal has nominated for featured status. Feel free to give comment here. -- Extra999 ( Contact me + contribs) 08:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This addition is not about the effect of stars on nebulae but of a significant discovery with regards to how stars eliminate the material surrounding it during the star formation process. Please read the article first to understand the importance and relevancy of this new discovery. Feel free to improve on the wording of the text but this information is of high relevance. It is at par with the inclusion of Bok globules and Herbig-Haro objects. The phenomenon still has no specific name solely due to its nature of being recently discovered Herschel telescope provides new glimpse at the end of star-forming process. GaussianCopula ( talk) 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
During translation of this article I encountered a problem. In section " Massive stars" we can read:
"Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy. Likewise, since they are more tightly bound than all lighter nuclei, energy cannot be released by fission."
Article about iron states however that:
The most abundant iron isotope 56Fe is of particular interest to nuclear scientists. A common misconception is that this isotope represents the most stable nucleus possible, and that it thus would be impossible to perform fission or fusion on 56Fe and still liberate energy. This is not true, as both 62Ni and 58Fe are more stable, being the most stable nuclei. However, since 56Ni is much more easily produced from lighter nuclei in the alpha process in nuclear reactions in supernovae (see silicon burning process), nickel-56 (14 alpha particles) is the endpoint of fusion chains inside extremely massive stars, since addition of another alpha particle would result in zinc-60, which requires a great deal more energy. This nickel-56, which has a half-life of about 6 days, is therefore made in quantity in these stars, but soon decays by two successive positron emissions within supernova decay products in the supernova remnant gas cloud, to first radioactive cobalt-56, and then stable iron-56. This last nuclide is therefore common in the universe, relative to other stable metals of approximately the same atomic weight.
and
"Nuclei of iron atoms have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon, surpassed only by the nickel isotope 62Ni. This is formed by nuclear fusion in stars. Although a further tiny energy gain could be extracted by synthesizing 62Ni, conditions in stars are unsuitable for this process to be favored. Elemental distribution on Earth greatly favors iron over nickel, and also presumably in supernova element production.
Iron-56 is the heaviest stable isotope produced by the alpha process in stellar nucleosynthesis; heavier elements than iron and nickel require a supernova for their formation. Iron is the most abundant element in the core of red giants, and is the most abundant metal in iron meteorites and in the dense metal cores of planets such as Earth."
It suggests that the iron nuclei isn't the most tightly bound of all, and the final product of stable stellar nucleosynthesis is in fact nickel, not iron. Link form "extremely massive stars" leads to "population III stars", which "have not yet been observed directly" and "astronomers consider Population III to be something of a mystery" - so what is the source of this information about nickel being produced?
Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seems that someone is here wrong, and I wish to know who. Thanks in advance for your help. 87.207.144.160 ( talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 23 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Wired is not qualified to give legal opinions, and cannot be cited to support them. – Smyth\ talk 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the editor's edits. Something doesn't smell right, what with him claiming "NPOV" on a featured article. I find that highly dubious. Further, the editor was requested to appear on the talk page here sometime yesterday but he did not do so. He's pushing a point, I think. -- Izno ( talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you being shouted down? No. You're being told a) that this article is the wrong place to be arguing about it, and b) that currently you are in a dispute even on Star designation, which is the direct parent to the article you wrote (and the child of this article). You want to argue about it, well and good. But WEIGHT suggests that you are doing so in the wrong place, and the behavioral guidelines suggest that you are doing so at the wrong time.
Re RJ: You're better fixed to assess the sources than I, so I'll let you handle that if necessary. -- Izno ( talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is what appears to be the statement of policy from the IAU:
I think this can probably be taken as the consensus view of "many astronomers".
The following source documents where a specific astronomer, Astronomer Bob Martino, Perkins Observatory at Ohio Wesleyan University, called the ISR practice a scam:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I think this is the Times article source for at least some of the Cecil Adams article, although it is a bit dated:
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)It is an interesting read. But note that in both cases, the use of the word "scam" and "fraud" are particular to the ISR, rather than the more general case.
Here is a related article:
I think we can re-craft the paragraph out of this and similar material. The existing Lyall & Larsen (2009) cite provides a reference for the IAU's status of "international recognition", and the Cecil Adams cite provides further reading. — RJH ( talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's I'll throw out a first draft of a re-write:
Let me know what you find unsatisfactory about this.— RJH ( talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
How about "Such a practice, which has been largely discontinued, has been labeled a scam and a fraud by some, including by members of the astronomical community, and others view private company star naming, in it's current form, as a legal activity" Glennconti ( talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{Deindent} I've modified and reordered the paragraph slightly so it is more specific and logically ordered.— RJH ( talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a second revision that attempts to address above concerns:
Any concerns?— RJH ( talk) 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Extraterrestrial objects are under the juristiction of Space law, a form of International Law. However no laws exist which pertain to star naming, so the industry is currently unregulated. IAU designations are based on scientific convention as there is no legal authority which covers this matter." [1] Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 04:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there no page on wikipedia that looks at the socio / cultural aspects of stars? Stars are key in numerous mythologies (Aboriginal creation stories, star of bethlehem etc..) and people spend money on unscientific pursuits (naming as above, astrology, etc.). Is there any page that brings this together? I can't find anything on the disambig page. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
According to NASA, the first sentence of this article is wrong. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/star_worldbook.html
"A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity." - Wikipedia
"The sun and most other stars are made of gas and a hot, gaslike substance known as plasma. But some stars, called white dwarfs and neutron stars, consist of tightly packed atoms or subatomic particles. These stars are therefore much more dense than anything on Earth." - NASA Snowleopard100 ( talk) 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
the line "The surface temperature of a main sequence star is determined by the rate of energy production at the core and the radius of the star and is often estimated from the star's color index" cites the source http://web.archive.org/web/20070626090138/http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s5.htm . This reference does not offer anything to verify the claim that the surface temperature is determined by the nuclear energy production nor radius. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be of interest if this article quoted the approximate number of stars in the universe. The new count approximation is 300 sextillion. Can we add this as referenced by http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131729046 Glennconti ( talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The WP article HE 1523-0901 only calls this the oldest star in the galaxy. Not the oldest star. As of Oct 2010 the most distant (oldest) object was a galaxy UDFy-38135539 http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpps/news/astronomers-discover-oldest-most-distant-galaxy-dpgonc-20101021-fc_10210876 Is this something worthy of an article update? Glennconti ( talk) 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
sphere instead of ball. DARREN EVANS 10:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I don't want to open up a whole can of worms again. But, the article currently reads "This ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud,[46][47][48][49]" I would like it to say "This discontinued ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud,[46][47][48][49]" ISR has not been claiming to officially name stars for over ten years as per reference [49] and their current website FAQ which says:
Q: Is my Star Name "officially" recognized? A: No. We offer our service services as a unique gift idea. All stars are numbered and we offer the gift idea of putting a name on that actual numbered star. The name is recorded in our book Your Place in the Cosmos© and the book is listed with the US Copyright Office. However, the scientific community does not recognize our star names.
Yes what they did back then was deceptive but do we still need to keep beating a dead horse? Can't we at least say that the offending practice has been discontinued? Glennconti ( talk) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)