New Largest Know Star in the Universe-Stephenson 2-18

You would think that something that MASSive, would suck up everything around it, like a black hole.
The warping of space/time near it's surface must be massive as well. If you were very near it, time may slow down to a crawl relative to being out here where the Earth is. I wonder what the critical point would be where it would basically become invisible. like a black hole. It would have an event horizon near it's surface!

a reply to: lostbook

Although it's impossible I would love to be able to look up at the moons from Saturn, Jupiter.

a reply to: lostbook

They have it wrong with the red shift and microwave background. Everything depending on it is a tale. Big bang, distances, mass. Cosmology is not science. It's a science fiction

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: lostbook

They have it wrong with the red shift and microwave background. Everything depending on it is a tale. Big bang, distances, mass. Cosmology is not science. It's a science fiction

That's an awfully bold claim. Can you back it up with anything?

a reply to: charlyv

Surface gravity is a function of two factors; total mass and radius. So, a function of density. With such a large radius, the surface gravity would likely not be great. Red giants are not dense bodies, that's why they are not as hot as smaller stars, that's why they are "red."

www.ericjamesstone.com...

well one question remains h the math showing the amount of atoms and the use of them would = a life span that long .
The larger the star the faster the star uses its mass the sooner it becomes a white dwarf or neutron star or black hole .

So what makes this star so special that Instead of a like time measured in million of years it has a life time that would be 2.3 TIMES longer then our own suns will be .

Our own sun may be around as long as 5 billion years in the state it is now then become a red giant then collapse on its self and being so small become a white dwarf sorry no bang from our sun .
Anyway so why hasn't this star collapsed 9 billion years agaio ?

the math can tell just how long a star will last because you know its total mass another way to age a star or say Just how long it will shin in what ever faze its in .

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: lostbook

They have it wrong with the red shift and microwave background. Everything depending on it is a tale. Big bang, distances, mass. Cosmology is not science. It's a science fiction

That's an awfully bold claim. Can you back it up with anything?

All I need is professor Robitaille
Sky Scholar

Come on, somewhere inside you know they are fooling you. YU Scuti is suddenly a third of the size and much closer. How do you feel about being a believer for many years, repeating how very big this monster star is? That's a big jump.
The brightet supernova was a good one too. All they had was couple of pixels of a galaxy billions LY away and they claimed it's an object 10 miles wide... oh yeah! Or claiming someting about a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after big bang. Come on, they are making it up and laughing at you over a bottle of brandy.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

This guy?

Robitaille has been presented as a physicist, cosmologist and even an astrophysicist, though anyone who has gained actual credentials in these fields would beg to differ. Criticism of his crank ideas range from accusations of cherry picking evidence to a failure to understand even rudimentary thermodynamics.

rationalwiki.org...

sguforums.org...

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Who is the crank here?

According to most, Robitaille. Since he can't get his facts right.

I dont think you have the mental capacity to talk about any of his vids.

Ok.

a reply to: lostbook

Intersting information - thanks!

Regarding size relative to talking about stars, I wonder if the saying "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" holds true?

Imagine the size and intensity of a star like this going SuperNova?

And then imagine the size of the resulting black hole. Damn thing would eat entire solar systems in a single bite.

[shudder]

originally posted by: lostbook
Move over UY Scuti, the former title holder for the largest known star in the Universe, we have a new champion named Stephenson 2-18. UY Scuti was believed to be 1700 times the size of our sun, but after new discoveries and newer more better measurements, the size of UY Scuti has been downgraded to about 900 times the size of our sun. Stephenson 2-18 on the other hand, has a size about 2150 times the size of our Sun. So, if you think about it, Stephenson is larger than UY Scuti even if it hadn't been downgraded in size.

My prediction is this cycle may repeat for Stephenson 2-18 where at some future point, we will re-evaluate it just like we re-evaluated UY Scuti.

The fallacy here is assuming any of these size estimates for the red super giants are accurate, and that's especially true if the size estimate is over 1500 times of the sun (which 2150 times the size of the sun definitely is), because stellar theory puts the upper size limit somewhere around 1500 times larger than the sun.

I'm sure stellar theory is less than perfect, but the observational uncertainties with these red supergiants are huge. They are typically belching off large amounts of mass which ends up enveloping the star in that expelled mass in the form of dust and gas, which causes problems for luminosity measurements used in the diameter calculations. It's not really a matter of debate that these uncertainties can be huge, which is why we can see such a huge change in the estimates for UY Scuti. This paper talks about some of the observational problems for red supergiants.

arxiv.org...

Until recently, the location of Galactic red supergiants (RSGs) in the H-R diagram was poorly matched by stellar evolutionary tracks (Massey 2003), with evolutionary theory failing to produce stars as cool and luminous as those “observed.” Many possible explanations might contribute to this discrepancy: there is poor knowledge of RSG molecular opacities, the near-sonic velocities of the convective layers invalidate simplifications of mixing length theory, and the highly extended atmospheres of these stars differ from the plane-parallel geometry assumption adopted by evolutionary models. In truth, the disagreement between theory and observation lay not in deficiencies of theory, but in an incorrect placement of RSGs in the H-R diagram.

We can't be sure until the discrepancies between theory and observation are resolved, however I tend to agree that the discrepancies between theory and observation is less likely to be a problem with theory, and more likely to be the result of known impediments to observational accuracy as suggested above.

So, in other words, if theory says 1500 times larger than the sun is an approximate upper limit to the size of these super-giants, an estimate of 1600 times larger wouldn't be a huge discrepancy, but I'd say 2150 times larger is a pretty huge discrepancy and is quite questionable. I can't rule out that theory could be revised to accomodate such a size but with all the known observational issues for this class of stars, that seems to be the first place to look for a resolution to the discrepancies.

originally posted by: midnightstar
So what makes this star so special that Instead of a like time measured in million of years it has a life time that would be 2.3 TIMES longer then our own suns will be .

Where are you getting "life time that would be 2.3 TIMES longer then our own suns will be"? I don't know the age of the star but the expected lifetimes of stars of the M6 type like Stephenson 2-18 is not expected to be very long. How long the star existed before entering the red super-giant phase, I don't know, but I expect it was significantly shorter than the (expected) lifetime of our sun.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
Who is the crank here?

Robitaille and you? Do I get double the prize for identifying two cranks when you only asked for one?

Robitaille actually did some useful work in his area of expertise, but it was when he ventured outside his area of expertise that he made claims which were obviously in contradiction of evidence. For example, he's claiming that a satellite over a million miles from Earth, pointed away from the Earth, is somehow picking up Earth's oceans instead of what it's trying to measure out in space. That's stone cold crazy, based not only on the distance but also because the frequency distribution would not match blackbody. By association, the people who believe such crazy claims have no better grip on reality.

We could point out that the CMB has been observed by satellites millions of miles away from Earth, and aimed away from Earth’s surface, or that reflected microwaves wouldn’t give a blackbody curve due to absorption bands in both water and Earth’s atmosphere.

That's the tip of Robitaille's crank iceberg, more is discussed at the link. I don't think modern cosmology has all the right answers, since some of the theories need improvement, but they don't include such obviously falsified claims as Robitaille promotes.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
Come on, they are making it up and laughing at you over a bottle of brandy.

That would be pretty impressive if true.
I can understand the reason why, I'm assuming they are trying to push the lie of evolution etc.

But how could they infiltrate so many different sciences?

Scientists are knowitall pricks. I cannot see the majority turning a blind eye to something they know is false.

The only other option is those evil liars created a fabrication so detailed and deep that it appears to be true and everyone follows.

If that is the case then they are too smart to fight.

If you're wrong I'm believing science.
If you're right than scientists are scary and evil so in the interests of my own safety I'm believing in science.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well it's rather a mix of science and money-driven bad science glued to it than a collaborated hoax and cash cow like the social engineering-driven global warming. Of course they got agressive when he debunked their satellite. They have to look busy and feed their spoiled kids. Do you expect them to say "Ok, he's right and we are frauds. We will stop the work on the satellite, pay back the billions and re-write the last couple of decades of our fantasies."? Let him answer your question better than me:

originally posted by: TexasTruth
a reply to: Phage


youtu.be...


I like this one. They make a scale model in the desert if you haven’t seen it.
This one really shows how tiny we are floating around in the solar system.

Wow!

Amazing and beautiful - thanks for the pointer!

So, suffice to say, the inhabitants of a planet with such a big sun, don't debate the reality of global warming?

Hey, no BLM debates there either.

Here's an interresting new vid. If you think that the red shift distance measurement is precise and "settled science" or "science" think again.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TexasTruth

My brother in law and I did that on a beach a few years ago. It was fun explaining to people what the hell we were doing.

The juvenile comedian in me can imagine you telling a beach goer "Your beach towel is exactly where Uranus needs to be."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wonder about that also....? It's definitely a possibility.

originally posted by: charlyv
You would think that something that MASSive, would suck up everything around it, like a black hole.
The warping of space/time near it's surface must be massive as well. If you were very near it, time may slow down to a crawl relative to being out here where the Earth is. I wonder what the critical point would be where it would basically become invisible. like a black hole. It would have an event horizon near it's surface!

Stephenson 2-18 could possibly be a black-hole, it is hidden behind astronomical gas and dust and has a slightly abnormal motion. It could even be two stars near each other.

It is practically invisible, it's mostly seen in the infrared.