The largest star known to man

[wrestler1ump]

Take a look at this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... asion2.png

The star VV Cephei stretches all the way from our sun, past Jupiters orbit and towards Saturn's orbit. Amazing! If a body in our universe could be this big, and that is only the star close enough for us to detect, just imagine how easily a change in gravity could cause this star to wipe out countless planets and other stars. It just goes to show the immense size of space, that space could so easily house a star that big.

[GabonX]

Not that big...

[strike wolf]

I believe that star is what scientists would call a red hypergiant. I could be wrong but I remember hearing about it on the Discovery channel not too long ago. If I remember right it's size is due to the fact that the star is reaching the end of its life span and has become unstable. Its size has indeed become enormous however its relative mass is very small.

[King_Herpes]

I've seen bigger chocolate stars...

[joe cool 360]

It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.

[strike wolf]

On top of that, haven't they discovered black holes that are larger than our solar system?

[joe cool 360]

On top of that, haven't they discovered black holes that are larger than our solar system?

Well, they have found several supermassive black holes in the center of most, if not all, the galaxies, I don't know how large by volume, but they are massive by mass and density.

Something else that should be considered is the enormous empty distance between all the aforementioned celestial objects. The nearest star to us is 4 light-years away! To get a grasp on this distance, think about how long it takes light to get from the sun to earth; 8 minutes and change, this is 1 Astronomical Unit. Using this measurement (~ 95 million miles) we can determine that Pluto is 40 AU away and the nearest star is 260,000 AUs away. So even this immense measurement is not enough to measure the incredible distance between objects in space, especially when we begin talking about stars that are thousands or millions of light-years away.

[Nickbaldwin]

It is amazing how little we know about the universe.

[InkL0sed]

Black holes don't have size; they're just a point.

They have mass, and their event horizons vary in size, but the hole itself is always simply a point.

And a red giant may be big, but a neutron star, which is sometimes no larger than New York City, can be denser than a red giant.

[Bertros Bertros]

Black holes don't have size; they're just a point.

They have mass, and their event horizons vary in size, but the hole itself is always simply a point.

And a red giant may be big, but a neutron star, which is sometimes no larger than New York City, can be denser than a red giant.

Which just goes to show its not about size, weight is everything...

[KoolBak]

Simply amazing stuff.....incomprehensible, really......

I have been a hard scifi fan (for fun reading) forever and find astronomy / the real sciences fascinating...fun thread!

[InkL0sed]

I should correct myself; I didn't mean a neutron star can be denser than a red giant. It always is.

[Juan_Bottom]

The size of any star, while amazing because you can SEE it, is easily dwarved by so many things that you can't see. For instance, the amount of Dark Matter holding any part of the universe together...
Or the posablity of life....
And overlapping dimensions....*goosebumps*....
And so much more....

[wrestler1ump]

It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.

There might be many universes- but for this to be the case, any action in one universe such as a gravitational pull cannot in any way affect any of they other universes, otherwise they would be the same universe.

[wrestler1ump]

Black holes don't have size; they're just a point.

They have mass, and their event horizons vary in size, but the hole itself is always simply a point.

And a red giant may be big, but a neutron star, which is sometimes no larger than New York City, can be denser than a red giant.

The point itself must have a size though. This "point" is where mass is so great that it sucks in all light or something like that. I'm not that good at this black hole stuff.

[wrestler1ump]

The size of any star, while amazing because you can SEE it, is easily dwarved by so many things that you can't see. For instance, the amount of Dark Matter holding any part of the universe together...
Or the posablity of life....
And overlapping dimensions....*goosebumps*....
And so much more....

I don't believe in parallel time dimensions. Time progresses whether there is or is not something going on, and time is infinite.

[Juan_Bottom]

The dimensions are part of the same space, but seperate, like layers of an onion or something. So time is equal, and infinite in all of them. The same planets and life would exist in each, but again; They are seperate. Because of this seperation; You may have made a different life choice in another dimension. Maybe in one you're rich, and another you're poor.
Different, but recognizably same.
Physicists now accept the theory of overlapping dimensions because of gravity. Gravity as a force is much weaker than other forces at work in our universe. Somehow they worked out the math that gravity leaks from the 23rd dimension. Though I have no idea how, the math is unbelievable. I don't understand too much of it.

[jonesthecurl]

This is, I believe, a recent alternative to the "dark energy" (as opposed to "dark matter") proposition.
I can begin to grasp the idea of other dimension better than I can dark energy.

[wrestler1ump]

The dimensions are part of the same space, but seperate, like layers of an onion or something. So time is equal, and infinite in all of them. The same planets and life would exist in each, but again; They are seperate. Because of this seperation; You may have made a different life choice in another dimension. Maybe in one you're rich, and another you're poor.
Different, but recognizably same.

I would guess that there is an infinite number of time dimensions, each one dependent on differences in matter and outcomes, from the extremely large to the microscopically small. However, despite the fact that there are many possible dimensions (one where I'm rich, one where I'm poor), the universe only travels through the one we live in.

[Neoteny]

Black holes don't have size; they're just a point.

They have mass, and their event horizons vary in size, but the hole itself is always simply a point.

And a red giant may be big, but a neutron star, which is sometimes no larger than New York City, can be denser than a red giant.

Also, they spin really fucking fast.

[TheProwler]

I think we might start realizing how small and powerless we really are over Earth's destiny in the next 5-8 years.

Our knowledge of the universe is impressive. Our understanding of our knowledge of the universe is most likely very wrong in many, even most, cases.

[MeDeFe]

The point itself must have a size though. This "point" is where mass is so great that it sucks in all light or something like that. I'm not that good at this black hole stuff.

Isn't it the point of a point that it has no size?

[Minister Masket]

There is poor science at work here.

Time has nothing to do with dimensions. wrestler said that time is the same for all dimensions, I think he's right. If you we were all 2D, like stickmen on a page, why would time be any different? No - SPACE is the right answer.
Much in the same way a 2D character would not understand how he could walk in one direction and end up at the same spot on our 3D Earth, so it's the same for us trying to understand the 4D Universe.

Time stands still for no-one.

Besides, I thought The Pistol Star was bigger.

[Juan_Bottom]

I said time is the same for all the dimensions. The dimensions all co-exist, and time flows through each.
Where time comes from, I don't wonder. But time is equal everywhere, as far as I know.

[CrazyAnglican]

It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.

Cool, and if I follow you correctly that means we have an infinite number of planets and on one of them a monkey is banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare on a typewriter.