This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Compact stars last forever" announces one heading boldly. Sure? Really? AFAIK black holes are believed to evaporate in the end. And beside that: this is a boring encyclopedia where bold newspaper headings aren't appropriate. A neutral heading such as "lifetimes" would be more appropriate. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I came here looking to learn something; that is, I am NOT an expert in the field and don't feel comfortable changing stuff here. Still, even to this non-expert, the line in the first paragraph "These objects are all small for their mass." seems completely the opposite of what is intended, especially when it is followed by "... it is very massive and has a small radius". Would somebody who DOES know something make just the first paragraph make sense? Chopbox (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert either, but I think it's OK. Perhaps have a look at the article on mass? Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Small by volume but with a high mass. "Small" normally refers to volume, not mass, I think, but I said volume explicitly in the sentence which confused you. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"In an attempt to cool itself, the star radiates energy in the form of surface luminosity." Should this be described so animistically? This radiation of energy is just a basic consequence of natural laws/physics. FirstMatter (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have rewritten the paragraph. It was badly explained altogether and the stellar life cycle is explained in great detail on linked wikipedia articles.
What you call "animistic" is often used when discussing and describing stars, even in pure scientific terms. Actually words like "death", "life", "attempt" etc. are used extensively in the natural sciences. Mostly for pedagogical reasons, but also because the natural sciences does not distinguish as rigidly between animals (including the human) and objects, as some people would like to believe. These distinctions are to a large degree of religious and cultural origin. What you object against is probably (?) that words like "attempt" implies some kind of conscience, and that inanimate objects (whatever that is) does not have a conscience? Well everybody and everything is guided by forces and the laws of nature and when inanimate objects "attempt" something, it just means that this is their reaction to these laws and forces. I agree that "animistic" words should be limited and used with caution when discussing science, but they certainly have their place too. A better description in this particular situation would simply be "In order to cool itself, ...". RhinoMind (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)