3 ms·

> nicklecompte 1 hour ago | parent [–] | on: Freshly made plutonium from outer space found on o... The reason astronomers use “metallicity” this way is large

> nicklecompte 1 hour ago | parent [–] | on: Freshly made plutonium from outer space found on o... The reason astronomers use “metallicity” this way is largely historical: (chemical) metals are not as prevalent in stars as non-metallic elements like carbon and nitrogen, but they are much easier to detect in spectral analysis. So historically the “metallicity” of a star really did refer to the heavy metal content (generally Fe), and considering the physical processes involved it’s not unreasonable to extend this to all non-H/He elements in the star. I think it would be “absurd” for astronomers to change this because people who aren’t scientists get confused. My bad yo. Please accept my humble apology in not knowing the historical signifacance of something. I'll be doing my masters in 2022/23, biochemistry/microbiology. I really should have been a bird watcher instead. Who cares about plant proteins anyway? That's not science at all.

ianai 5y ago
In math, I was taught to always be mindful of the definitions-particularly because they change on context. When studying certain systems different conventions make sense than in other studies. It’s not a judgement call as to what matters absolutely, just what helps the area of study the most. Further, the better flexible you are with working across contexts the better a grasp on the topic you have. (So further, the more ways you can explain a concept or prove a theorem the better you understand the concept.)