If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CosmosUp)   Here are the five largest stars in the universe. One would have thought Oprah would at least get a mention   (cosmosup.com) divider line 29
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3837 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jul 2014 at 11:41 AM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-13 08:53:14 AM
What a well written, and researched article.

First of all, NOT in the Universe.  Secondly, why is one "80 to 150" times Sol's mass, and another would require "a billion suns" to match?  I suspect there would be, oh, a few dozen in between.
 
2014-07-13 11:43:20 AM

Dheiner: Secondly, why is one "80 to 150" times Sol's mass, and another would require "a billion suns" to match? I suspect there would be, oh, a few dozen in between.


Pretty sure one is referring to mass, and the other to volume.
 
2014-07-13 11:45:12 AM

Dheiner: What a well written, and researched article.

First of all, NOT in the Universe.  Secondly, why is one "80 to 150" times Sol's mass, and another would require "a billion suns" to match?  I suspect there would be, oh, a few dozen in between.


I suspect it's because there is a WHOLE LOT OF SKY to view up there.

Also, it kinda sounds like one is mass, the other is a volume comparison, but it's not clear.
 
2014-07-13 11:56:19 AM
In small print, the stars are noted as being largest in terms of mass, volume, and luminosity, which makes sense with R136a1 being the most massive known object, but the ranking system for these is strange and not discussed. For instance, being this massive, R136a1 is small in terms of volume, whereas the Pistol Star is not the most massive, voluminous, or luminous, but is considerably high on all three.
 
2014-07-13 12:12:55 PM
would be awesome if they were not stars but Dyson spheres radiating so much heat they look like stars
 
2014-07-13 12:49:57 PM
It would have been funnier if they had listed six, and the sixth was the russet potato. Aw, go to hell or give me planet Pluto back!
 
2014-07-13 12:50:50 PM
Which would have been seven. So, unrelated.
 
2014-07-13 12:55:47 PM
Yeah, well, if that's what's important to you, man....
 
2014-07-13 01:07:13 PM
Meh, 265 times larger than the sun? If you're trying to impress me you have failed.
 
2014-07-13 01:09:18 PM

Slaxl: Meh, 265 times larger than the sun? If you're trying to impress me you have failed.


You should see subby's mom.
 
2014-07-13 01:22:04 PM
Can someone post the list? I don't do one-page-per-item lists that have stuff that pops up over the content. I hate that in-page pop-up crap. I'm trying to read! Don't interrupt me!
 
2014-07-13 01:54:52 PM
In the universe?  Really?  And the way they define "largest" is poor at best.

This post seems more like a BuzzFeed reject than a scientifically sound article.
 
2014-07-13 02:09:05 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-13 02:22:52 PM
The Miss Universe pageant is rigged. The winner is always from Earth.
 
2014-07-13 02:44:54 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x557]


That's pretty cool. What's also really cool is the proportionate size of an atom to a grain of sand is the same as a grain of sand to the sun. The Universe is mind-bogglingly tiny and huge.
 
2014-07-13 02:48:32 PM

RaiderFanMikeP: would be awesome if they were not stars but Dyson spheres radiating so much heat they look like stars


Wouldn't that make them pretty poor Dyson spheres?
 
2014-07-13 02:52:25 PM
Bees?

/leaving verklempt
 
2014-07-13 02:53:12 PM
I think I have to question generally the quality of that site.

http://www.cosmosup.com/voyager-1-hav e-finally-reached-interstellar-s p ace/

Why the collective plural? Just an example... shoddy work abounds.
 
2014-07-13 03:04:45 PM

Tobin_Lam: Mambo Bananapatch: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x557]

That's pretty cool. What's also really cool is the proportionate size of an atom to a grain of sand is the same as a grain of sand to the sun. The Universe is mind-bogglingly tiny and huge.

We're actually about in the middle of the exponential scale of things, from Planck volumes up to galactic superclusters.

Speaking of Planck volumes (the smallest possible unit of volume, basically one Planck unit of length [smallest unit of distance] on a side), here's something to boggle your mind: there is a very large but still finite integer that is actually mathematically useful called "Graham's Number." It has four terms, and to get the next term from the first requires a process that produces a number that is as large relative to the first term as the first term is to 1.

The first term is so big that not only does it exceed the count of the number of discrete Planck volumes in the entire observable universe (the term refers to the amount of the universe that we could hypothetically observe with perfect instruments, namely, everything that isn't so far away from us that red shift would have it receding from us faster than the speed of light relative to us; not just what we can actually physically observe with current technology), but the number is so huge that if written out in standard decimal place value notation for positive integers, the number of digits exceeds the number of discrete Planck volumes in the entire observable universe! Got that? You can't write down even the first term in standard decimal place value notation if you used the entire observable universe as paper in all three dimensions and made each digit as small as anything could possibly be, and packed them like sardines!

It goes without saying that using every particle of matter or energy that exists in the entire observable universe as ink, with one particle per digit, would not provide anywhere near enough ink.
 
2014-07-13 03:08:13 PM

treesloth: I think I have to question generally the quality of that site.

http://www.cosmosup.com/voyager-1-hav e-finally-reached-interstellar-s p ace/

Why the collective plural? Just an example... shoddy work abounds.


The name of the site itself makes me question it. "Cosmos Up"? WTF kind of name is that? It reminds me of those viral sites and nothing good comes from those sites.
 
2014-07-13 03:27:47 PM

COMALite J: We're actually about in the middle of the exponential scale of things, from Planck volumes up to galactic superclusters.


As I noted in a different thread, if the universe is not actually infinite, then the approximate estimated size of the entire universe is roughly as much larger than the observable universe as the observable universe is bigger than a human being.
 
2014-07-13 03:29:34 PM

treesloth: RaiderFanMikeP: would be awesome if they were not stars but Dyson spheres radiating so much heat they look like stars

Wouldn't that make them pretty poor Dyson spheres?


Not really, they have to deal with the energy from the enclosed sun somehow. Radiating it off into space seems like a good idea. They should glow more brightly in the infra red than the host star would in fact as the civilisation that made them would be converting some visible light into heat to do work. The scale is right for some of them. If I were to build one I would make the outside radiate with the spectrum of a star too (to hide from the reavers) The only way to tell would be to measure their gravity in some way.

They might be converting heat into gravity or something crazy though so even that might not be enough.
 
Xai
2014-07-13 04:00:40 PM
*In the galaxy - and the know galaxy at that.

Also - Much better source with much more fun vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r22t-A-eJ3k

/oldie but a goodie
 
2014-07-13 04:50:39 PM
Bad article or worst article ever?  Author needs to have a chat with Inigo Montoya about the meaning of the word "Universe".
 
2014-07-13 06:40:01 PM

treesloth: I think I have to question generally the quality of that site.

http://www.cosmosup.com/voyager-1-hav e-finally-reached-interstellar-s p ace/

Why the collective plural? Just an example... shoddy work abounds.


• Please if any image will be removed (the image are hosted by a specialized site, due to their size) contact us.

If it... will... be removed? What?
 
2014-07-14 12:01:28 AM
Xkcd dealt with this  https://what-if.xkcd.com/83
 
2014-07-14 07:26:18 AM

Fark like a Barsoomian: treesloth: I think I have to question generally the quality of that site.

http://www.cosmosup.com/voyager-1-hav e-finally-reached-interstellar-s p ace/

Why the collective plural? Just an example... shoddy work abounds.

• Please if any image will be removed (the image are hosted by a specialized site, due to their size) contact us.

If it... will... be removed? What?


Not that it is too big... means copy it to your your server and quit sucking up our bandwidth by hot linking it on fark, and tell them before hand or else they might sue you for the said copyright. See, that makes perfectly no sence what so ever; but if not, removed means they are not hosting the given file if you notice it missing they didn't remove it. It isn't their content, and they hot linked it, but they didn't want to mention that. So just quit trying to understand it and make another copy before its gone forever.
 
2014-07-14 08:22:29 PM
A list of the biggest stars...and no Melissa McCarthy, John Goodman or Kevin James?
 
2014-07-15 12:23:45 AM

COMALite J: It goes without saying that using every particle of matter or energy that exists in the entire observable universe as ink, with one particle per digit, would not provide anywhere near enough ink.


Seems like a rather pointless number. What do you calculate with it?
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report