Sizik wrote:I think he means putting all the atoms there without regard to how they're put together.
Who, me? Of course not, the whole point of my argument is that basic structure is important. If you just take all of the atoms of a star a hurl them at random into a blob, maybe it'll sort itself out and become a star, but that initial glob really couldn't be called a star. At best it could be a "pre-star", iff the mess ends up evolving in time to eventually function like a star.
Now, for whole regions then yeah, for my naive toy model of a star, I have a huge concentric shell with nothing by hydrogen, and for that shell sure, go nuts, just toss in hydrogen at random, fill up the space, and that'll suffice my naive toy model of a star.
Now you can argue whether or not there will be any differences between that toy model star and a star which is created in a nebula. My toy model argument runs on ubiquity. Given enough time and resources, any kind of star which can be created in our universe will be, and so unless there is something unique and currently unknown which goes into literally every type of star formation possible which forbids this toy model of star from ever forming, then I'd say ubiquity is currently on my side of reason. I certainly don't deny that there may be unique similarities among nebulae-created stars, but now that's making a distinction between nebulae-created hot plasma balls which fit our models of stars and star-evolution, and other rarer occurrences of star formation which presumably also fit our models of stars and star evolution. And I'm not sure that's actually a distinction that anyone is really trying to make.
Now, all that being said, Bane's objection was much more strongly stated, saying that even if I placed every atom exactly as they are currently in the sun today, if I just copy/pasted the whole thing and placed it elsewhere, that what you'd have wouldn't actually be a star, and that's just straight up dualism there, there's no recourse.