Originally Posted by mwfanelli
You really might want to look up Sugarman (Google will work if you don‘t have access to A.A.S, or A.C.S. biographies).
I can find numerous definitions of "burn" that include references to both fusion and fission. It is not the primary definition in any of them nor is the strict chemical exothermic process in question the first definition except in one section of the O.E.D. devoted to things Scientific and that in a section on common occurrences of science.
At least one version of the Cambridge Dictionary refers to "burn" as a Physics term when referencing the fission and fusion processes. Source ranging from a Webster's dictionary version, to a number of online source all refer to at least the thermonuclear events as "burning". Curiously, the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in the couple of editions available seem strangely quiet on this topic/definition/term-of-art(of course not on oxidation or combustion but on "burn".)
One particularly applicable first definition for "burn" as provided by Random House refers to an event the produces heat and most usually light and consumes fuel. A star certainly produces heat and light and consumes fuel.
I do not believe that a careful reading of what I wrote, even though it was offhanded and meant lightheartedly and not written for formal consumption, in any way is interpretable to imply that I subscribe to some outdated theory regarding the "ether". (I could make some comments regarding ether but will refrain to prevent further confusion or inducement of stupor). I'll grant that in a sense the phrase "floating around" isn't the most precise of terms, but was meant more in the metaphorical sense to refer to the large amounts of available energy produced by the (now don't get upset) "nuclear fire".
Fission and Fusion have been included in the Chemistry Curricula on a regular basis since at least the early 1970's and in some detail if only in the theoretical realm. Gymer's Ecological Chemistry text of the early 70's (I have a 1973 version on hand) devotes considerable space and detail to the topic. The text was used for a Chemistry Section for Non-Science majors as a science-fulfilling requirement. Several California (including Fresno, Berkeley, SFSU,) schools used this text under different titles including CHEMISTRY: An Ecological Approach. I have other University Chemistry texts for General Chemistry that all make more than a passing mention of the fission and fusion topics.
Perhaps, "inexact usage" referring to "burn" might have been more accurate in a very limited sense, but we were talking the Sun to begin with and not Chemistry. I then referred to Physical Chemistry, and here is where Sugarman might make a large difference in how my answer is viewed. The secondary clue is in my reference to a particular set of elements.
Have a Nice Day!