4 ms·

Not “way” less, because most stars are lower mass than the Sun and thus have longer lifetimes (~ trillions of years in the case of red dwarfs).

by Keysh 5y ago

glenstein 5y ago
Do you have a sense of how many stars are "sunlike" compared to how many stars there are in general? This is interesting to me because there are a lot of seemingly arbitrary ways you can try to make the size and age of the universe comprehensible, and relative to a human scale is arbitrary but at least kinda means something. And the commenter above measured our point on a cosmic time scale by looking at where on that timeline our sun formed relative to other sunlike stars. By that metric we are kind of "in the middle." But for me the natural next question is compared to stars in general, as "sunlike stars" is maybe a bit of a texas target.
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  AFAIK the sun is brighter than about 90% of stars in the Milky Way. We're on the larger and faster burning side, as stars go. So there will be many stars left after the sun dies. Whether you consider this to mean that saying we're about halfway through the lifetime of sunlike stars sidesteps the question depends on whether you believe that complex, energy-intensive, intelligent life is equally viable on planets orbiting red dwarfs.
  - glenstein 5y ago
    One person's idea of a "side step" is another person's "refraining from making assumptions" but point noted. For me, in my position of refraining from associating life with particular types stars, I at least feel a bit more reassurance to think of us as in the company of stars writ large, by which measure we're not so close to the end of the cosmic span of time. That said, I think sun-like stars is a perfectly legitimate measure to put alongside the others when casting about for intuitive ways of assessing where we stand on a cosmic timeline.

Not “way” less, because most stars are lower mass than the Sun and thus have longer lifetimes (~ trillions of years in the case of red dwarfs).

by Keysh 5y ago

Not “way” less, because most stars are lower mass than the Sun and thus have longer lifetimes (~ trillions of years in the case of red dwarfs).

glenstein 5y ago

Do you have a sense of how many stars are "sunlike" compared to how many stars there are in general? This is interesting to me because there are a lot of seemingly arbitrary ways you can try to make the size and age of the universe comprehensible, and relative to a human scale is arbitrary but at least kinda means something. And the commenter above measured our point on a cosmic time scale by looking at where on that timeline our sun formed relative to other sunlike stars. By that metric we are kind of "in the middle." But for me the natural next question is compared to stars in general, as "sunlike stars" is maybe a bit of a texas target.

Jweb_Guru 5y ago
AFAIK the sun is brighter than about 90% of stars in the Milky Way. We're on the larger and faster burning side, as stars go. So there will be many stars left after the sun dies. Whether you consider this to mean that saying we're about halfway through the lifetime of sunlike stars sidesteps the question depends on whether you believe that complex, energy-intensive, intelligent life is equally viable on planets orbiting red dwarfs.
- glenstein 5y ago
  One person's idea of a "side step" is another person's "refraining from making assumptions" but point noted. For me, in my position of refraining from associating life with particular types stars, I at least feel a bit more reassurance to think of us as in the company of stars writ large, by which measure we're not so close to the end of the cosmic span of time. That said, I think sun-like stars is a perfectly legitimate measure to put alongside the others when casting about for intuitive ways of assessing where we stand on a cosmic timeline.