Monster star!

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
I'm glad you posted about this.

I read it in the Metro this morning (free London paper) but couldn't find it on their website.

It's absolutely colossal and makes our planet look like a pimple on the backside of a blue whale...
 

slickskid

Points Scorer
Supporter
It certainately puts things into to perspective.

Just as well there are no planets revolving around monsters of that size, imagine the amount of sunblock you'd have to go through.
 

McZiderRed

Champion Elect
Supporter
No denying that it's huge! But...

"RMC 136a (more often nicknamed R136) ... is sited within one of our neighbouring galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud, some 165,000 light-years away."

So, what we are 'seeing' is 165,000 years ago. Old news, me thinks! LOL

Just a thought, if the universe ends and, you know, started to implode from the outer reaches inwards, how would that play out?
The Universe starts to end today. If you look through the Hubble telescope and see stars from billions of years ago, does that mean we have billions of years to wait for the "Big Crush"?

Is the expansion of the universe quicker than the speed of light and, ergo, will the theoretical collapse of the universe be quicker then the speed of light?

Thankfully, I looked at Wiki and found this article:

While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe.

It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.

Perhaps a more complete assessment is that the interpretation of the metric expansion of space continues to provide paradoxes that are still a matter of debate. The prevailing view[citation needed] is that of Chodorowski: "unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable"
:o

Wish I hadn't asked now... :unsure:
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
Bullfrog said:
Unobservable eh. So if space expands in a forest and there's no-one to see it, does it make a noise?
No because "In space no one can hear you scream" :thumbsup:
 

McZiderRed

Champion Elect
Supporter
Bullfrog said:
Unobservable eh. So if space expands in a forest and there's no-one to see it, does it make a noise?
Aparantly (according to QI) you can hear "forced rhubarb" grow. So, presumably if the expansion of space in a forest is forced, you can hear that too! :D

But, if no-ones there to hear it, who'd care! LOL
 

MajorDanby

Motorsports' answer to Eric the Eel
Contributor
McZiderRed said:
Bullfrog said:
Unobservable eh. So if space expands in a forest and there's no-one to see it, does it make a noise?
Aparantly (according to QI) you can hear "forced rhubarb" grow. So, presumably if the expansion of space in a forest is forced, you can hear that too! :D

But, if no-ones there to hear it, who'd care! LOL

You can too!!! I used to live in the 'rhubarb triangle' and visited a rhubarb farm my mate owns up near Leeds!
 
Top Bottom