• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stars, Chemical reactions, Life.

We Never Know

No Slack
Just because.....:D:p:D

"Stars such as our sun are a chemical rreaction"

We as life are chemical reactions.

"Stars are born, go through a life cycle and die"

We are born, go through a life and die

"Old stars basically give birth to new stars"

As we get older we produce new humans(lol)

Could stars be life that we don't understand??
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Just because.....:D:p:D

"Stars such as our sun are a chemical rreaction"

We as life are chemical reactions.

"Stars are born, go through a life cycle and die"

We are born, go through a life and die

"Old stars basically give birth to new stars"

As we get older we produce new humans(lol)

Could stars be life that we don't understand??
I have no idea who you are quoting, but stars are not a chemical reaction. They involve nuclear fusion reactions, though obviously being a star involves a lot more than that besides.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Just because.....:D:p:D

"Stars such as our sun are a chemical rreaction"

We as life are chemical reactions.

"Stars are born, go through a life cycle and die"

We are born, go through a life and die

"Old stars basically give birth to new stars"

As we get older we produce new humans(lol)

Could stars be life that we don't understand??

Stars are a nuclear fusion reaction. Nuclear fusion is not a chemical reaction
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have no idea who you are quoting, but stars are not a chemical reaction. They involve nuclear fusion reactions, though obviously being a star involves a lot more than that besides.
And to consider a star as "life" would
mean re-defining the word.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Just because.....:D:p:D

"Stars such as our sun are a chemical rreaction"

We as life are chemical reactions.

"Stars are born, go through a life cycle and die"

We are born, go through a life and die

"Old stars basically give birth to new stars"

As we get older we produce new humans(lol)

Could stars be life that we don't understand??
There may be a paranormal connection between each person and the stars from which our atoms have come, perhaps a connection that crosses time. This is not science but paranormal pondering and mixed with some garbage ideation. Atoms subatomic particles are identical, yet they are in different places and times. Any two are exchangeable. If they traded places would we notice? I don't think we would, however we might be changed by it. Physicists now say that gravity is an effect of time, that mass turns time towards itself and creates the effect of gravity. What causes mass to do this? Perhaps it is from particles communicating with their identical cousins. This exchange would take place mostly in a certain order, leading to the passage of time and the attraction of masses. Even if its a wrong idea it could work as a maths scaffold for modeling time. Be that garbage or not, this exchange of particles may not always go in order leading to some time artifacts. We may be exchanging particles with stars that no longer burn today, and so in effect we may actually be the stars living a duel existence.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
And to consider a star as "life" would
mean re-defining the word.

What is interesting is fire checks all the boxes for the definition of life, even though fire is not life, as we expect to see, life. Fire metabolizes; burns. Fire can reproduce and grow. It can even use radiational heat to signal and spawn itself at a distance. We need to contain fire and keep its food away, less it grew too large too fast.

Fire is not conscious, unless fire's ability to control its environment, for its own growth, counts. Fire can control its needed air flow, pulling fresh air in; pressure drop, as hot smoke and fire wastes rise. The fire bombing of Berlin at the end of WWII created hurricane force winds, feeding the needed air flow into the growing fire. if fire was organic it would be a monster. When it is controlled, it can be used for good.

Fusion is like a fire, in the sense all fires lower free energy. Luckily, the fusion fire is contained and controlled by nature, so it does not grow too fast. Instead the containment allows it to burn more efficiently and allows the fuel to last, and not just flare in a chain reaction of binge eating.

One may ask what is the "wood stove" used by the Sun, for fusion, so it can make its nuclear wood last and not just become consumed as fast as the fire can eat?
 

idea

Question Everything
What is interesting is fire checks all the boxes for the definition of life, even though fire is not life, as we expect to see, life. Fire metabolizes; burns. Fire can reproduce and grow. It can even use radiational heat to signal and spawn itself at a distance. We need to contain fire and keep its food away, less it grew too large too fast.

Fire is not conscious, unless fire's ability to control its environment, for its own growth, counts. Fire can control its needed air flow, pulling fresh air in; pressure drop, as hot smoke and fire wastes rise. The fire bombing of Berlin at the end of WWII created hurricane force winds, feeding the needed air flow into the growing fire. if fire was organic it would be a monster. When it is controlled, it can be used for good.

Fusion is like a fire, in the sense all fires lower free energy. Luckily, the fusion fire is contained and controlled by nature, so it does not grow too fast. Instead the containment allows it to burn more efficiently and allows the fuel to last, and not just flare in a chain reaction of binge eating.

One may ask what is the "wood stove" used by the Sun, for fusion, so it can make its nuclear wood last and not just become consumed as fast as the fire can eat?

The definition of life has long been a challenge for scientists and philosophers.[9][10][11] This is partially because life is a process, not a substance.[12][13][14] This is complicated by a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of living entities, if any, that may have developed outside of Earth.[15][16] Philosophical definitions of life have also been put forward, with similar difficulties on how to distinguish living things from the non-living.[17] Legal definitions of life have also been described and debated, though these generally focus on the decision to declare a human dead, and the legal ramifications of this decision.[18] As many as 123 definitions of life have been compiled.[19]

Life - Wikipedia
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Just because.....:D:p:D

"Stars such as our sun are a chemical rreaction"

We as life are chemical reactions.

"Stars are born, go through a life cycle and die"

We are born, go through a life and die

"Old stars basically give birth to new stars"

As we get older we produce new humans(lol)

Could stars be life that we don't understand??
Like asking if atoms are alive. Yet here we are, nothing but a bunch of atoms.

Same as everything else out there. A bunch of atoms.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What is interesting is fire checks all the boxes for the definition of life, even though fire is not life, as we expect to see, life. Fire metabolizes; burns. Fire can reproduce and grow. It can even use radiational heat to signal and spawn itself at a distance. We need to contain fire and keep its food away, less it grew too large too fast.
I see a problem with how you use the definitions involved.
You could argue that memes are life forms.

"Life" has many working definitions.
Some are vague, some are so overly-general as to be of no use,
& some are overly restrictive, eg, we can imagine non-biological
life, the behavior of which mimics biological life.
Life - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

JIMMY12345

Active Member
Just because.....:D:p:D

"Stars such as our sun are a chemical rreaction"

We as life are chemical reactions.

"Stars are born, go through a life cycle and die"

We are born, go through a life and die

"Old stars basically give birth to new stars"

As we get older we produce new humans(lol)

Could stars be life that we don't understand??
Hans Bethe in 1938 with others worked out the science of hydrogen and helium transfers which allow stars like the sun to shine.One of these scientists on a moonlight evening whispered to his girl friend I have worked out why Stars shine.Suitably impressed she married him shortly later.Talk about blinding your date with science.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
It is not a chemical reaction though

This reaction is actually connected to a branch of Chemistry, called Nuclear Chemistry. Nuclear Chemistry does not deal in quarks and/or all the substructure of matter that is found in particle accelerator data. Nuclear Chemistry stops at the basic model of the atom at ambient conditions; protons, neutrons and electrons. Nature also shows natural radiation at room temperature; Uranium and half lives of isotopes. These observation adds some other ambient particles, to nuclear chemistry, like neutrinos.

Once you add lots of energy and smash particles together, in ways not found on earth at natural ambient conditions, this is where Nuclear Chemistry ends and Nuclear Physics begins. Ironically, the new fusion process with lasers, is based on Nuclear Chemistry and not Nuclear Physics. Nuclear physics did not work very well for fusion; magnetic containment. The Nuclear Chemistry that works with the lasers is based on 1950's knowledge.

If there were no particle accelerators, Nuclear Chemistry could still do fusion. One problem with Nuclear Physics is it does not take into consideration the phases of matter. In chemistry, the same matter, under different amounts of temperatures and pressure, can form different phases. Water at very high temperature and pressure will form a metal. If we lower this to ambient conditions, we get a liquid phase.

Particle Physics uses extreme temperature; extreme energy, but the pressure is not very high; sustained. Their data is more like an isotherm on a much larger phase diagram, that should include extreme gravitational pressures to be more complete simulation of all type of star cores. They are at the wrong part of the full diagram, which was not useful for fusion.

Physics does not think in terms of phases of matter, but seems to assume one phase for all conditions. This is not found in chemical and nuclear chemical nature. The neutron star, for example, will not allow the proton and electron phases to exists, freely, due to the extreme pressures; neutron only phase. This is a different place on the phase diagram of Nuclear Chemistry. Nuclear Physics would need sustained pressure to maintain this neutron phase, stating with protons and electrons, which they then atom smash. They would need a secondary pressure zone, to induce the primary substructure, into the correct phase. This may be beyond current technology.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
This reaction is actually connected to a branch of Chemistry, called Nuclear Chemistry. Nuclear Chemistry does not deal in quarks and/or all the substructure of matter that is found in particle accelerator data. Nuclear Chemistry stops at the basic model of the atom at ambient conditions; protons, neutrons and electrons. Nature also shows natural radiation at room temperature; Uranium and half lives of isotopes. These observation adds some other ambient particles, to nuclear chemistry, like neutrinos.

Once you add lots of energy and smash particles together, in ways not found on earth at natural ambient conditions, this is where Nuclear Chemistry ends and Nuclear Physics begins. Ironically, the new fusion process with lasers, is based on Nuclear Chemistry and not Nuclear Physics. Nuclear physics did not work very well for fusion; magnetic containment. The Nuclear Chemistry that works with the lasers is based on 1950's knowledge.

If there were no particle accelerators, Nuclear Chemistry could still do fusion. One problem with Nuclear Physics is it does not take into consideration the phases of matter. In chemistry, the same matter, under different amounts of temperatures and pressure, can form different phases. Water at very high temperature and pressure will form a metal. If we lower this to ambient conditions, we get a liquid phase.

Particle Physics uses extreme temperature; extreme energy, but the pressure is not very high; sustained. Their data is more like an isotherm on a much larger phase diagram, that should include extreme gravitational pressures to be more complete simulation of all type of star cores. They are at the wrong part of the full diagram, which was not useful for fusion.

Physics does not think in terms of phases of matter, but seems to assume one phase for all conditions. This is not found in chemical and nuclear chemical nature. The neutron star, for example, will not allow the proton and electron phases to exists, freely, due to the extreme pressures; neutron only phase. This is a different place on the phase diagram of Nuclear Chemistry. Nuclear Physics would need sustained pressure to maintain this neutron phase, stating with protons and electrons, which they then atom smash. They would need a secondary pressure zone, to induce the primary substructure, into the correct phase. This may be beyond current technology.

TL;DR.

A fusion reaction is a nuclear reaction which is distinct from a chemical reaction.

End of story
 
Top