Uh. Real star(s)?

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Uh. Real star(s)?

http://www.wimp.com/greatstar/

 

...Is the scale portrayed here accurate? If so... there ae stars that eclipse the scale of galaxies?

This doesn't seem accurate.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/greatstar/

 

...Is the scale portrayed here accurate? If so... there ae stars that eclipse the scale of galaxies?

This doesn't seem accurate.

If you mean "eclipses the size of our/other star systems" then, yeah. That's accurate. (I asked Phil Plait about that video a while ago.)


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Our sun is a rather small

Our sun is a rather small star.

 

 

And yes, the scale does seem accurate.

 

Quote:

If so... there ae stars that eclipse the scale of galaxies?

 

No

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And yes, the scale

Quote:
And yes, the scale does seem accurate.

...But our solar system is shown on the scale as being microscopically small compared to the star (in fact, one of the things alleged to have been exclipsed by the larger stars was an entire nebula). That puts the star on a scale that well competes with the size of a galaxy.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you mean "eclipses

Quote:
If you mean "eclipses the size of our/other star systems" then, yeah. That's accurate. (I asked Phil Plait about that video a while ago.)

Well... holy crap. That's awesome!

 

Uh. Who's Phil Plait?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
And yes, the scale does seem accurate.

...But our solar system is shown on the scale as being microscopically small compared to the star (in fact, one of the things alleged to have been exclipsed by the larger stars was an entire nebula). That puts the star on a scale that well competes with the size of a galaxy.

They were showing you the planets of our solar system and our sun without the distance of space between them.  Canis Majoris is bigger than all of our planets and our sun combined, however it's not as large as the Milky Way Galaxy (afaik).

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Kevin R Brown

Sapient wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
And yes, the scale does seem accurate.

...But our solar system is shown on the scale as being microscopically small compared to the star (in fact, one of the things alleged to have been exclipsed by the larger stars was an entire nebula). That puts the star on a scale that well competes with the size of a galaxy.

They were showing you the planets of our solar system and our sun without the distance of space between them.  Canis Majoris is bigger than all of our planets and our sun combined, however it's not as large as the Milky Way Galaxy (afaik).

DOH!

 

...I knew I was missing something. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
And yes, the scale does seem accurate.

...But our solar system is shown on the scale as being microscopically small compared to the star (in fact, one of the things alleged to have been exclipsed by the larger stars was an entire nebula). That puts the star on a scale that well competes with the size of a galaxy.

VY Canis Majoris (the largest known star) is 1800-2100 solar radii. At 2100, that brings it to somewhere around Saturn's orbit were it to be placed where the Sun is.


The nebula shown is the Eta Carina Nebula - named for the large star there. I think it was meant to scale the star, not the nebula. Reading about these very large stars, I'm certain it's about the star and not the nebula, because appearance these large fellers are at the edge of stellar workability, and larger masses would mean the gass pressures would be sufficient to overpower thier gravity, making for a kaboom. Stars the size of galaxies are just plain impossible.

And Phil Plait is the Bad Astronomer and president of the JREF. A very freindly and accessible kind of guy.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:VY Canis Majoris (the

Quote:
VY Canis Majoris (the largest known star) is 1800-2100 solar radii. At 2100, that brings it to somewhere around Saturn's orbit were it to be placed where the Sun is.

Ah. A few AUs in diameter, then; still impressive (if not the gargantuan entity of burning oblivion I had pictured in my mind. Drat! Sticking out tongue ).

 

Incidentally, tha video didn't really make me feel 'small' at all. I somehow always feel like I'm part of something much larger when shown awesome astronomical structures.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
You are also confusing

You are also confusing the term nebula with galaxy. A nebula is a generic term for a faint fuzzy bit in the sky. So all galaxies are nebulae but not the other way around. If you look through even the better of affordable telescopes (ie the price is south of $2,000), all that you will ever see is a faint bit of fuzz when you look at any nebula. All the great pictures that you see are taken with hours long exposures (sometimes over several nights) and in a few cases, they even have to be assembled mosaics because even at the lowest useful magnification that a a 'scope may be capable of, the nebula may be too big to fit in a single frame.

 

Just for fun, if you are in the northern hemisphere and you have clear dark skies tonight, I can direct you to a couple that are naked eye visible if you know how to find them. We will start a couple of hours after it gets dark and find the moon as a reference point.

 

Look about ten lunar diameters to the right of the moon and one lunar diameter up. If you are lucky enough to have really dark skies and clear still air, you might see a tiny little bit of fuzz perhaps a tenth of the diameter of the full moon.

 

If you do then congratulations, you are looking at Messier object #31, the most distant object visible to the naked eye. It is also known as the Andromeda galaxy. Even a good set of binoculars will make the viewing better but it will still be a faint fuzzy patch of light. However, it is so distant that all that you will ever see is the hot dense core of the galaxy. If you were to make a composite photograph of the galaxy with the moon in view, you would realize that it is really about 8x the diameter of the moon. As it happens, that is an existing photograph and you can see it here:

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061228.html

 

Our next naked eye nebula is to the left of the moon about twice as far. Look for the constellation of Orion and find the asterism known as the belt. Now look below the center star just about where the great hunter's family jewels should be hanging. Here we have M42 which is a cloud of dust and gas about 24 light years across.

 

Normally, dust and gas would not look like anything. Most such pockets are dark spots in the sky that block your view of what is behind them. However, this is very special dust and gas. As it happens, M42 is a stellar nursery, which means that the dust and gas are at just the right density that every so often, a small knot of it will undergo gravitational collapse and form a new star. So the cloud is lit up from within by hot young stars.

 

As far as the nebula in the video, that is Eta Carenae and it is much cooler if you don't just let it just whip past you. It is in the class known as planetary nebulae (which has nothing to do with planets BTW) and more specifically, it is getting ready to go supernova.

 

If you take a look at better still photographs of it, you can see that the nebula is composed of two giant farts of star stuff ejected from it's poles and that is surrounded by a larger cloud which was the outer layer of the star being blown of in a precursor nova a few thousand years earlier.  Also, a more accurate figure for it's size would be about a couple of thousand AUs across.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/greatstar/

 

...Is the scale portrayed here accurate? If so... there ae stars that eclipse the scale of galaxies?

This doesn't seem accurate.

That was awesome! My spatial imagination gave up somewhere in the middle. The largest star I remembered before was Betelgeuze.
The music is nice, Navras by Juno Reactor. I've got the whole album (called Labyrinth) and it's kickass. The Navras itself is an very diverse collage of musical styles...

How long is the VY Canis Majoris estimated to exist? A several millions of years? How could we get such a concentration of matter in space so lately? I'd expect such a big star to be formed in first billions of years of the universe, when it was a much smaller and thus concentrated place.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Kevin R Brown

Luminon wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/greatstar/

 

...Is the scale portrayed here accurate? If so... there ae stars that eclipse the scale of galaxies?

This doesn't seem accurate.

That was awesome! My spatial imagination gave up somewhere in the middle. The largest star I remembered before was Betelgeuze.
The music is nice, Navras by Juno Reactor. I've got the whole album (called Labyrinth) and it's kickass. The Navras itself is an very diverse collage of musical styles...

How long is the VY Canis Majoris estimated to exist? A several millions of years? How could we get such a concentration of matter in space so lately? I'd expect such a big star to be formed in first billions of years of the universe, when it was a much smaller and thus concentrated place.

 

It's several billion years old, though it probably hasn't been this voluminous for more than a few dozen million years.  Addressing the issue of a "concentration of matter in space", keep in mind that while Canis is much larger and more massive than our sun, it's also less dense, being spread out as it is to around 2000 solar radii.  I can't find an estimate for the stellar mass of Canis, but it should be well upward of 70 solar masses, which while uncommon, is not unheard of by any means.  One of these days, it will start fusing iron in its core and supernova.  

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell