![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The web page cited by the first reference Aaron Hoover (2004-01-05). "Star may be biggest, brightest yet observed" (in English). HubbleSite. Retrieved on 2006-06-08. could not be retrieved on 2009-01-20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.101.13 ( talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It'd be interesting to see how far away from this star an earth like body would have to be to receive the same amount of light the Earth receives from the Sun. -- BHC 20:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
To receive the same amount of light from the Sun, Earth needs to be placed a staggering 6325 AUs (0.1 light years!) away from this monster if it has a luminosity of 40 million suns, using the inverse square law. -- Strangerguy 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I know stars do get "bigger" as well as denser, but with all I've learned about astronomy, it seems to me that they're comparing "mass" more than size but representing it with size. I mean, if it's that big, so be it, but things supposedly get denser until they hit certain amounts of mass. For example, Jupiter would need to be 13 to 80 times more massive than it currently is in order to be a brown dwarf star, but it would (in theory) stay the same size and just get denser. Once it was big enough to be an actual star (ala the sun) it would definitely get bigger (fusion?), but then stars are known to be about ten or so solar masses and only slightly bigger than the sun. Also, some lower mass stars are many thousands of times bigger. I think one has something like 70 or 80 masses and is in the THOUSANDS of times bigger than the sun, but isn't anywhere near the most massive. If anyone could help out, it'd be much appreciated! 12.165.254.36 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In reply to the inquiry above, the issue of size of stars is a rather complicated issue once one strays into either the territory of young stars still stabilizing their structure or old ones which are beginning to develop shell structures with different regions burning different fuels. The very fact that stars get large (form red giants) at this end stage is commonly argued with hand-waving and invocations of the Virial theorem in introductory classes -- but this simplification misses some (sometimes) critical physics. A paper circa 1985 treating the red giant issue in some detail spent dozens of pages on development of an analytical formulation to capture the essential physics. The result was to establish that it was not necessarily as simple as one would guess as to why evolved stars become red giants. In fact, stars with more primordial compositions are not always red giants/supergiants at the end of their life -- Supernova 1987A exploded as a *blue* supergiant (which is much smaller than a red supergiant). Don Barry, Cornell Astronomy.
A V magnitude of 35? That's well beyond the detection limit of any current telescope - either this is a calculated value (which should be made clear), or someone is confused. The Eikenberry paper quotes AV of 35 ± 5 (which is visual extinction at V NOT the V magitude, which is itself a calculated value), SIMBAD does not know of the object and the Figer paper is silent on the matter (but does quote vLSR of 35, which is the velocity relative to the local standard of rest, again not V magnitude). Modest Genius talk 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a citation for "Current star formation theories tell us that a star can have at most about 120 Solar masses"? -- Doradus ( talk) 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
How come the Joey/Danny guy with multiple accounts keep changing the ref back to 1,135 solar radii? 1,135 solar radii probably comes from 5 million solar luminosities which is now known to be not true (2 million solar luminosities is the current accepted value) and 8,100 degrees kelvin which is probably a typo from 18,000 degrees kelvin (someone probably reversed the 8 and the 1). Also, this isn't the first time I've seen the Joey/Danny guy He also tries to put VY Canis Majoris and VV Cephie back as the largest stars and he has multiple accounts to make it look like more than one guy is doing these things. 67.71.178.246 ( talk) 02:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)