Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Showerthoughts_Mod t1_ixz4z41 wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

1

ARPanda700 t1_ixz5i0t wrote

While not every single star in the night sky is a sun, the likelihood of there being >1 is still high.

23

ARPanda700 t1_ixz75qi wrote

> the luminous celestial body around which the earth and other planets revolve

I'd say a star that provides anything for the bodies revolving around it, even if it's just that gravity guidance, is a sun. A star solo-drifting off in space wouldn't be a sun in my mind, but I'm also not an astronomer so what do I know!

9

AxialGem t1_ixz8iym wrote

Sure, that's why I asked what you personally meant I guess, I'm not sure whether 'sun' is always used in astronomy with a super rigorous definition, although I've heard 'sun-like star' plenty as well.
Afaik it is thought that most stars do in fact have planets, but ofc I'm also not an astronomer lol

4

AxialGem t1_ixzdxue wrote

Haha, I mean you're right. A Jeffery, like all concepts, is simply that which we habitually call a Jeffery. Which can be many different things I guess

Not all Karens are named Karen either ;)

2

snowman-89 t1_ixzdz2o wrote

There is only one Sun, and there are still stars during the day, just not visible by the naked eye

1

stackdatdough t1_ixzqspu wrote

This shit doesn’t even make sense. The sun is a star but that’s it. There’s only one sun

47

BlitzFan1234 t1_ixzw7bx wrote

Technically all stars that have orbiting planets are suns. While you are correct that the stars are there during the day you can’t see them therefore ops point still stands.

0

felixrocket7835 t1_iy04mix wrote

This is objectively incorrect, the Sun is the name for OUR star, there are not multiple suns.

"The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System."

"The star round which the earth orbits."

Couple of definitions

"Sun" isn't a label for a type of star or a different name for a star, it's just a name for the star we orbit, people often get confused as we call our moon, the moon, and other natural satellites, moons, some articles will say suns instead of stars to not confuse those with rather bad astronomy knowledge.

256

ParticleDetector OP t1_iy0n9i8 wrote

Popular media has made it such that some people do call other stars ‘sun’ though.

e.g

Krypton’s red sun

tattoine’s twins suns

Romulan sun

Etcetc

So much so that I think many people would imagine standing on an alien planet, looking up at their version of the star the planet is orbiting, and casually say ‘damn the sun is sure hot today’.

Edit : I’m not saying people are calling every star as ‘suns’ interchangeably, I’m saying people call the star a planet is orbiting as the ‘sun’ of that planet.

−6

felixrocket7835 t1_iy0wk2c wrote

I have never heard that definition in my life, well, except on WalesOnline.. hardly a good source.

The Sun is the name of our star, the reason people use sun for stars is due to a misconception, thinking that sun is simply a synonym for stars.

Most dictionaries define the Sun as the star which the earth orbits.

4

AxialGem t1_iy0wqlc wrote

If you're big into dictionary definitions, wiktionary has the following:

"A star, especially when seen as the centre of any single solar system"

And OED lists: "any star around which planets move"

The thing is, the usage of a word determines its meaning, not any one definition. And the word sun is in fact habitually used to mean 'star,' just read or listen to works of sci-fi I guess. If you pretend it's not, you're simply not capturing the full meaning.

5

BerossusZ t1_iy1vdc7 wrote

Our moon is actually called "Moon" and our star is "Sun". Sol and Luna could be used as other names for them and people love to say those are their "actual" names, but even scientists don't ever use them. Moon and Sun just ARE their names in the present day, not just what they're commonly called

2

ParticleDetector OP t1_iy271pr wrote

It’s like that as well on the Oxford Dictionary and the Collin’s dictionary but I’m still getting downvoted for mentioning that it’s also like that in popular fiction :(

Apparently the sun as a common noun is not…accepted by everyone?

18

ParticleDetector OP t1_iy2b13c wrote

Since we aren’t talking about the Sun (proper noun version), are you talking about using ‘sun’ (the common noun version) as a replacement for any star, even though it’s not orbited by planets?

If so then yeah that’s it’s weird.

But isn’t ‘sun’ (as a common noun) already being used for a rather long time to describe stars with planets, in popular works, and have such characters in such works mention is as the ‘sun’ (common noun) of that planet etc?

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here yet say that ‘sun’ is a straight synonym for ‘star’, especially lonely stars with nothing orbiting it.

Like, if you see binary stars and nothing else in that system, we don’t call those ‘suns’ right?

I think you assumed that I was using ‘sun’ as a synonym for every single star?

0

WeirdCreeper t1_iy2bl79 wrote

Anyone who says there isn't more than one sun in the universe I'm just gonna start saying earth's star is relatively cold today better leave my jacket at home to avoid getting starburnt.

1

ParticleDetector OP t1_iy2esm5 wrote

I think I’m seeing a few things happening in the replies.

  1. People thinking I’m using ‘sun’ interchangeably for every star out there regardless if they have planet/s orbiting it.

  2. People thinking I’m using ‘Sun’ the proper noun, instead of of ‘sun’ the common noun. (But I didn’t capitalize ‘sun’ anyway.

  3. People who somehow have not come across the usage of ‘sun’ the common noun in popular media (I’m just so not sure of this one because it’s so common that it’s improbable they missed it.)

Edit : 4. People perhaps thinking that I’m referring to other stars as a sun relative to where we are, when it’s a ‘sun’ relative to the planets orbiting that star. And again common usage in popular media.

I’m as perplexed as you are.

2

SyncMeASong t1_iy2fzqr wrote

  1. Someone incorrectly thought they had a "gotcha on a technicality" moment -- and even selectively listed some definitions while omitting others that nullify his statement.

  2. That comment made it to the top early after being jumped on by other people with similar "gotcha" desires.

  3. Now the top comment is simply getting the reflexive subconscious upvotes that top comments get.

Laugh it off. :)

3

EliOfTheSong t1_iy2m5ys wrote

Everyone's being adequately pedantic about what constitutes a 'sun', but what about what it means to 'see'? Sunlight doesn't block light from stars from reaching our eyes, it just drowns it out. So in the day, our eyes receive light from all the extra-solar stars plus one solar star.

39

Reddit-User-3000 t1_iy2mi22 wrote

Yeah, “Sun” and “Star that acts like our sun” are technically both correct a according to many dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary, and Dictionary.com. However the latter also recognizes “Goblinmode” as a word. As incorrect phrases become common place they are eventually accepted, which is what happened in the case of the Sun. We have named many stars, ours not disclosed. We named our star “The Sun”, just as we named the largest known Star “UY Scuti”. At first calling stars Suns would have been the same as calling them Scutis, but since it has became more widely used and accepted it has become correct according to some reputable sources.

2

ParticleDetector OP t1_iy2mpmy wrote

Haha! That makes a kind of sense! So…you see more suns in the daytime than at night?

And this goes down the rabbit hole of

  1. Nights where there are no moon - you see more stars because the moon occupies space in the sky

  2. Days where the sun and moon are in the sky together - you see least stars because now there are two bodies taking up some space in the sky.

8

EliOfTheSong t1_iy2nmfk wrote

Ah you make a point that we have to take into account the stars the sun is physically blocking. If there are at least two stars behind the sun (and whose light is not gravitationally lensed around it), then night is back in the lead.

7

AxialGem t1_iy2nmsz wrote

Definitely. Generalization is one of the most common and well-understood types of semantic change. Even if it wasn't in dictionaries, whether or not a word is commonly used in a certain way is an observable fact lol. But yea, they are right to list that broader usage of course

2

Fhotaku t1_iy2pov4 wrote

A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise.

A morning filled with 400 billion suns, the rising of the milky way

Carl Sagan, Cosmos

7

Craeondakie t1_iy2vtwc wrote

This shower thought makes sense though? There's nothing really wrong with what OP said, top comment just wanted to pick a fight. Probably had nothing better to do.

2

Cheyruz t1_iy2znx4 wrote

To continue the pedantism, I'd still argue that you don’t see the stars, even if you might see their light. If I stand around a corner from you and shine a flashlight on a wall you can see, you still don’t see the flashlight, just the light from it.

1