Are stars sentient or otherwise living?

i have no hard proof to speculate that stars are alive. Yes, there are random solar flares (see SOHO's C3 pictures of 02/18 - 20/2003) and the way it ejects its gassy shell seems to be similar to a heart's pulsations. So... any ideas or knowledge on this matter?

Here is a picture of Monoceros V838 in 4 phases of its "incident", with the first picture starting at May 2002.

This picture is for indirect inspiration (meaning, it could be a real supernova [70% probable], a random decision by the star to detonate [probably unlikely], or it could be an artificial detonation of some sort [30%, judging by observably erratic jumps in luminosity wavelenghts and magnitude]) Does anyone have a closeup of this star dating February 2002, which is when it first started to do this? NASA only shows May 2002 and up, which is typical of NASA hiding vital information. It may not be a coverup, but in speculation, it could be a result of not having observed the star earlier than the organization did.

In my story (still in progress), it focuses on the possibility of a star being a life of its own. Actually, it focuses on esoteric trends more than anything else, considering its an epic about a human with a starship and a mission to meet his possible maker. I have an excerpt of that story here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I think that stars could be alive, maybe not by themselves, but perhaps more like parts of a whole. Stars that really seem alive to me are Binary stars which feature a constant transfer of particles between the two, which sometimes reminds me of a mother nursing her child. Refer to the picture below for an example of a relationship in a binary star system between the "parent star" and its companion.



I do admit that I find a calming, harmonizing truth when learning about space.

What do you all have to say on the possibilities that stars, like the one sitting in our system, could be a sentient life-form / alive?

Main Entry: alive
Pronunciation: &-'lIv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English on life, from on + lIf life
1 : having life : not dead or inanimate
2 : still in existence, force, or operation : ACTIVE
3 : knowing or realizing the existence of : SENSITIVE
4 : marked by alertness, energy, or briskness
5 : marked by much life, animation, or activity : SWARMING

As far as this definition goes, I would have to say that it is a mixed bag. Are stars or the universe alive in a sense? Yes, in the way that an animated system is, but if you are refering to it having consciousness it is either doubtful or conscious in a way that we can not detect.

That's both an excellent addition and ponderous question , Jonna. Thanks for your input and inspiration! You rock!

consciousness ? in a star? wouldn't that be something? thats something I have fanticized about, but never actually gave much thought over. I will have to remedy that immediately.

I wonder how such a form of existence would think, let alone what kind of perspectives such an object could have.

particularly those supermassive bluegiants...

I think there is some science fiction that has this theme. I think Frank Herbert (Dune) wrote some but I'm not sure how popular they were.

The obvious just hit me.

A tree is by all acounts alive and may even feels pain as I have heard, but probably does not have consciousness (at least in a way that we can tell). So is a star alive? It goes through a 'life cycle' just like all other things that we consider to be alive. It is born, grows, decays (uses up its energy) and then dies (becomes inactive). So using that logic, I am going to have to change my answer to reflect that, by our current definition, it is indeed alive.

Originally posted by Jonna
The obvious just hit me.

A tree is by all acounts alive and may even feels pain as I have heard, but probably does not have consciousness (at least in a way that we can tell). So is a star alive? It goes through a 'life cycle' just like all other things that we consider to be alive. It is born, grows, decays (uses up its energy) and then dies (becomes inactive). So using that logic, I am going to have to change my answer to reflect that, by our current definition, it is indeed alive.

i would agree that a star is alive in that sense, not that it has a consciousness mind or soul, but that it has a life cycle, birth to death.

Originally posted by Jonna
The obvious just hit me.

A tree is by all acounts alive and may even feels pain as I have heard, but probably does not have consciousness (at least in a way that we can tell). So is a star alive? It goes through a 'life cycle' just like all other things that we consider to be alive. It is born, grows, decays (uses up its energy) and then dies (becomes inactive). So using that logic, I am going to have to change my answer to reflect that, by our current definition, it is indeed alive.

THATS RIDICULOUS!!!!!...A tree doesnt have conciuosness or pain!!....wat the hell are u talking about????....you need a brain or some sort of organ or something to process input. As far as i am concerned, trees are just a mechanism to convert CO2 into oxygen.

Eventho they are made of cells, this still makes no sense, since cells dont think or feel pain.

RIDICULOUS...

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
THATS RIDICULOUS!!!!!...A tree doesnt have conciuosness or pain!!....wat the hell are u talking about????....you need a brain or some sort of organ or something to process input. As far as i am concerned, trees are just a mechanism to convert CO2 into oxygen. Eventho they are made of cells, this still makes no sense, since cells dont think or feel pain.

RIDICULOUS...

Well to answer your so elegantly written statement, I would have to say that if you categorize a thing as alive when it has a life cycle, needs some form of nourishment to survive and can be harmed causing a hindrance to the self activity of its survival, then such a thing would fall under the definition of being alive. As for the trees feeling pain thing, I had only said that I have heard of it being said. I never said that it was a fact that plants resonate at a certain wavelength when they are harmed. I simply posted the hearsay in the hope that another had heard that as well and thus validate the existence of said theory. Further more, I never said that a tree had consciousness in a way which we would consider it to be consciousness.

Perhaps you should reread the thread and rectify your error of comprehension.


[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Jonna]

Sorry not alot to add to the thread, But I just want to say thanks for starting a topic other thatn Bush, Kerry, and Iraq. And take my mind to a place where these problem are are a grain of sand on the level we are talking.

BTW Just to throw something in the pot, Could a Star be like a river, or body of water. Where it gives life, but it self is not alive.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Sorry not alot to add to the thread, But I just want to say thanks for starting a topic other thatn Bush, Kerry, and Iraq. And take my mind to a place where these problem are are a grain of sand on the level we are talking.

(Someone needs to get out of the WoT/Mudpit more often )

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
BTW Just to throw something in the pot, Could a Star be like a river, or body of water. Where it gives life, but it self is not alive.

Well the problem with this question (as is the problem with most questions) lies in the definition of the key word which resides in the quesiton itself. In this case it is alive. Going with what I was saying in a prior post, I believe that a tree fits into the definition of alive where as another member does not believe as such. This is what the original question evolves into. It is no longer Is A Star Alive?, but rather What Does It Mean To Be Alive? and then in turn Does A Star Fall Into The Classifications Of What It Means To Be Alive?

Sorry to go off topic, but I found what I was looking for concerning plants feeling pain.

Do plants feel pain?
"Well, recent research indicates that plants do have a stress response, which is used when a leaf is cut, for example. They release a chemical called ethylene (also known as ethene, a simple hydrocarbon: C2H4). Ethylene is released as a gas, all over the surface of the plant, and indeed its release is not only triggered by damage, but also decay. So a rotting plant releases lots of ethylene too.

Why is this like a pain response? Because ethylene release controls plant responses to stress, such as extra cell growth. It�s a signal to the plant to take measures to withstand stress. So this is all quite similar to my definition of pain above.

What�s more, the researchers who studied this response had a rather bizarre way of measuring the presence of ethylene � by listening for it. To be precise, they captured the gas in a bell jar and fired lasers at it, which resonated with the molecules and emitted sound at a particular frequency. Upon seeing this, it wasn�t long before scientists and journalists alike were calling these sounds �screams�, and suddenly this response seemed a lot more like pain as we know it!"

www.sciencenet.org.uk...


[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Jonna]

get the f outta here!!! plants feel pain???
I will never be able to prune my roses again without feeling guilty.

Originally posted by Jonna


What�s more, the researchers who studied this response had a rather bizarre way of measuring the presence of ethylene � by listening for it. To be precise, they captured the gas in a bell jar and fired lasers at it, which resonated with the molecules and emitted sound at a particular frequency. Upon seeing this, it wasn�t long before scientists and journalists alike were calling these sounds �screams�, and suddenly this response seemed a lot more like pain as we know it!"

www.sciencenet.org.uk...

Sound spectroscopy!! I never thought of it. Interesting.
There should be more research about this. For instance, by mutating the genes responsible for the ethylene response in a tree, and see if it survives longer.


[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Desmond]

Origginally posted by AlnilamOmega
This picture is for indirect inspiration (meaning, it could be a real supernova [70% probable], a random decision by the star to detonate [probably unlikely], or it could be an artificial detonation of some sort [30%, judging by observably erratic jumps in luminosity wavelenghts and magnitude])

do you know how a star explodes? it expands, contracts, expands, contracts as densly as possibly, and then explodes. the inner parts of the star can be blown off in layers, causing it to have layers. also, changes in magnitude can be attributed to the star rapidly cooling and material being flung in front of its view from here on earth. 100% made in space real supernova. EDIT: i just thought of this. the changes of magnitude could be attributed to the fact that the pictures were taken at different times as well. i'm not sure how much a difference that would make with hubble though, probably not much.

It may not be a coverup, but in speculation, it could be a result of not having observed the star earlier than the organization did.

Yes, that is basically exactly what it is. It's damned near impossible to predict when a star will go nova, so i'm sure if someone knew when it was about to happen the world would know.

Stars that really seem alive to me are Binary stars which feature a constant transfer of particles between the two, which sometimes reminds me of a mother nursing her child. Refer to the picture below for an example of a relationship in a binary star system between the "parent star" and its companion.

you know what's a really cool concept? the one that mass and gravity cause that. what about stars that share surfaces? or ones that do not transfer material?

in short, no, stars are not alive.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
BTW Just to throw something in the pot, Could a Star be like a river, or body of water. Where it gives life, but it self is not alive.

actually, yes. when a star explodes it creates the heavier elements which you and i (and everything else for that matter) are made up of. also, the material from a supernova can be formed into a new star. our star is suspeced of being formed from remnants of several other stars.

[Edited on 4/7/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

Commander, yes I am well aware of how a star explodes. It usualy expands and expands until there is no more hydrogen within itself to convert into helium. You forgot to add that when you were stating the obvious and tried to insult my intelligence. You are referring to the expansion of the outer layers, whereas the innermost core materials implode on themselves due to the lack of material inside of itself. This is usually the case with most stars, and why the largest of all stars usually implode into an incredibly-dense neutron star eventually forming a black hole as it continues to implode under its own mass.

And, YES, what about binary star systems that may or may not choose to exchange their particles with each other? Are you saying that just because of the involvment of local gravitic influences, there is no chance of a star being alive? Thanks for your input, but this thread requires a bit more openmindedness than such an egotistically-biased blunt statement. Thanks again for trying anyway, but come back after a few years of seasoning, if you could, please.

I have to give you credit for your last statement on the involvement of "starstuff" having a direct influence of future life-forms, however. There is hope for you yet, as you strike me as a relatively intelligent person, if not slightly more impatient than myself. Don't you think that its possible that because stars eject this kind of life-giving material into space, that it may have to be alive in the first place?



Jonna, thanks again for your input on this matter. That last post about comparing stars to plant life I think was quite relevant, as many consider plants to be little more than barely animated objects. And that tidbit about how a plant responds to stress is fascinating. Such a relationship can be compared to humans releasing certain chemical compounds in our bloodstream when we have something like an open wound. Perhaps plants have a conscience that is more directly related to the planet they grow within, although I admit that this is mostly speculation based on the idea that people have spotted plants having auras and etheric energy fields, not unlike animals.



Ambient Sound, funny you should mention the sci-fi theme. I swear on my life that when I first started the story I linked to above in January of 2002, my knowledge of occult topics was highly limited in comparison to what it is now. I had no idea whatsoever about Jahbulon, chemtrails, Draconians, Illuminati... a that particular time, I only knew a few tidbits about 2012, Atlantis and Lemuria, and the Egyptian pyramid cluster around Gizeh. BUT, at the time of its initial writing, I knew I wanted to write about the deity who made humans. Since I had no idea of the TRUE nature of metaphysical topics like a Universal-mind and the deity known as Jahbulon, I decided to create a new race called "Xyrillians". The more I read back on what I wrote in the past, the more I wonder how I knew about correlations between my ideas and actual stories and happenings BEFORE the more esoteric branch of my research. I used the name Alpha Omega as my alien protagonist originally because I saw it on a video game that was all about the end of a human race... I had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER that the name was taken by Jesus Christ beforehand. Anyway, as the story goes, the reader takes not that ALpha Omega was the god that was written mostly about in the Bible.

Then I read the Keys of Enoch... the document that spawned the more occult areas of my research... absolutely fascinating document, courtesy of Metatron, the Seraphim that was formerly Enoch.

I suppose it would be my mindset and thoughts that would really set me apart from previous writers. I really would like to make it a movie, though, considering it would have some really nice special effects and camera views of space (one scene depicts the arrival at Xyril which is located by the central blackhole of the galaxy with a star moving at sub-light speeds as it was caught in between singularity's gravity well and the rogue supergiant star next to it... I found out soon after writing this scene that such a star has been found to exist and is officially recognized... Sagit A or X, I believe. I really need to finish this story)... another coincidence between this story and pre-research (I swear I am not making this up) is how I wrote about a war between the "Terrans" (those who lived on Earth before humans) and the Galactic Council headed by Xyril, and how in one of the last battles, the GC destroyed the planet between Mars and Jupiter. Perhaps I am more in touch with a Universal Mind or collective form of consciousness than I give credit for, or I have a generously educated but clandestine spirit.

Its a nice but baseless thought.,

If its true then our's is grumpy....

I don't think that it's so baseless, but obviously I am biased as the thread author. An item reinforcing this belief is how people of the olden days used to attribute the Sun to being a type of god, and would even go so far to credit certain deities with control over such a powerfully massive influence (ie Horus). one of the primary reasons behind my idea that stars may be alive is how they are responsible for bringing life into various different star systems, more than likely not limited to our own. Hydrogen may play a critical role in this, as our most abundant counterpart of hydrogen, H2O (water), has demonstrated in many scientific studies to have something like a memory. To have a naturally-induced memory, I think, demonstrates the ability to live in and of itself. Albeit, it may live in a manner that is considered to be unconventional. Notice I said naturally-induced, thus discouraging smartasses from saying "yeah, but what about RAM and hard drives".

Netchicken, what makes you say that ours is in a bad mood, however?


[Edited on 4/7/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

your right ...they are sentient ....if we could find a way to tap the knowledge of the sun or stars there is incredible knowledge there of almost unlimited imagination.....there is a way to do this albeit you must become self-realized before it is possible....
The sun is a giant library and if people dont think this is true ...just ask them if they think all the mysteries of life have been solved and let them know it wasnt that long ago that people believed the earth was flat and that gorillas were myths ...new information is being discovered all the time ....there was also an indian scientist who did experiments with plants to prove they do have some sense of whats going 0n around them..

also do a google research on luther burbank ....i think you will be surprised at the outcomes of his findings on plant life...its incredible!!!!

In 1937 the author Olaf Stapleton wrote a book titled Star Maker where he considered a universe of increasingly complex senitent entities Stars were alive as were star clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies and so on. It is considered one of the classics of S.F.. It probably is out of print but if you can find it definitly read it.