= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open thread for December 9 - 16, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (371)
What I meant is that stars are born, they procreate (by spewing out new seeds for further star formation), then grow old. Stars "evolved" to be mostly smaller and longer lived due to higher metallicity. They compete for food and they occasionally consume each other. They sometimes live in packs facilitating further star formation, for a time. Some ancient stars have whole galaxies spinning around them, occasionally feeding on their entourage and growing ever larger.
Don't traits have to be heritable for evolution to count? I'm not an expert or anything, but I thought I'd know if stars' descendants had similar properties to their parent stars.
Descendant stars might have proportions of elements related to what previous stars generated as novas. I don't know whether there's enough difference in the proportions to matter.
Can you give an example of a property a star might have because having that property made its ancestor stars better at producing descendant stars with that property?
Sorry, I'm not an expert in stellar physics. Possibly metallicity, or maybe something else relevant. My original point was to agree that there is no good definition of "life" which does not include some phenomena we normally don't think of as living.
See here.