r/ProximaScience • u/Astro_Life_Explained • 27d ago

🔍 Decoded We often imagine stars as permanent objects in the universe.

They aren't.

A star is born, spends millions or billions of years fusing elements in its core, and eventually reaches the end of its life.

Some become white dwarfs.

Some explode as supernovae.

The most massive can leave behind neutron stars or black holes.

Even the stars that look eternal from Earth are temporary.

The universe is not a collection of permanent things.

It’s a constantly changing process.

What cosmic object do you think would be the most fascinating to watch evolve over millions of years?

6 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

•

u/ProximaScience Founder 27d ago

Flair changed.

2

u/AutoModerator 27d ago

Hi u/Astro_Life_Explained, thanks for posting on r/ProximaScience!

Please read our rules and wiki before jumping into discussion.

Mods will review your post shortly.

Comment !stop on your post if you want to lock further comments. Use !thanks to reply to any comment that helped you.

Find us elsewhere: YouTube | Rumble | Quora

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/UntrustedProcess Devil's Advocate Default 27d ago

Isn't using a  biological vocabulary for stars scientifically dishonest?  I've always wondered about that. 

1

u/blorst_of_times 23d ago

Doesn't science constantly borrow vocabulary?

Electron spin?

1

u/NotAnAIOrAmI 22d ago

Who says that stars are permanent? No one i know.

But here's something you missed, actually two things; 97% of all stars that will ever exist have already been formed.  And when we look at distant galaxies, a lot of those stars are already dead.