Colossal star found.

Discussion in 'Opinions & Current Events' started by Stevisiov, Jul 21, 2010.

  1. Stevisiov

    Premium
    United Kingdom England, Warwickshire
    PSN:GTP_Sigma

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10707416

    So, the largest star ever found alters our understanding on exactly how big a star can physically get, it also gives us great reason to assume, why shouldn't there be bigger out there?
  2. DK

    DK
    Premium
    Ireland Ireland
    PSN:driftking18594

    All I can say is: "Oh my Jesus Christ monkey balls."
  3. arvore

    Portugal Porto-Portugal
    PSN:arvore

    Yes Stevisiov,the Universe is a great unknown(probably Infinite)and I feel Humankind only Knows( as in see or probe) the little backyard of a little house,in a huge town,in a huge Country in a huge Planet...
    So I guess everything is possible even beyond our wildest Imagination...
    The question is if we ever are going to be able to unveil ,at least the whole town...?
  4. Vince_Fiero

    Premium
    Belgium G-D Luxembourg
    PSN:GTP_Vince_Fiero

    What I really miss in this one is how far this confirms or changes (and exactly where it changes) the current theories.

    It seems it confirms some theories of the forming of the universe. There was little information on the distance of these stars and thus how long ago it was that the star was this big.
  5. TheCracker

    Premium
    South Korea North Korea
    PSN:GTP_TC / gtp_dan

    Well, the article states that RMC 136a is 165,000 light-years away. So unless i'm being dumb, the images they are seing are 165,000 years old.
  6. Coxis

    Mexico GTP_Coxis
    PSN:Coxis

    A light year is an unit of distance, not time.
  7. TheCracker

    Premium
    South Korea North Korea
    PSN:GTP_TC / gtp_dan

    It's both. It's the distance light travels in a year. If something is 165,000 light years away then the light you are seing from it is 165,000 years old. Unless i'm mistaken?
  8. Sureboss

    Premium
    United Kingdom UK

    You're not. A light year is approximately 10,000,000,000 KM, which is how far light travels in a year.
  9. Famine

    Administrator
    United Kingdom Rule 12
    PSN:GTP_Famine

    You're missing a couple of zeroes there. It's a hair under 10,000,000,000,000km.
  10. Touring Mars

    Moderator
    United Kingdom Glasgow
    PSN:GTP_Mars

  11. wfooshee

    Premium
    Panama City, FL

    It's not both. It doesn't measure how long it takes something to happen, it measures how far something went in a given time. You could just as easily have car minutes, if the speed of a car was a universal law. If the speed of a car was locked by nature at 60 miles per hour, then a car minute would be a mile. It's distance, not time, being measured.

    Yes, the current image of something 165,000 light-years away is 165,000 years old, but that does not make it a measure of time. It's measure of how incredibly stinking far away that thing is, since it takes light, the fastest possible thing in the Universe, that long to get from there to here.

    The concept came up when people realized how incredibly stinking far away stuff in the Universe actually is, and miles became clumsy.

    How many millimeters is it to Saturn? It's an unmanageable number.

    A light-year is not a measure of time any more than a foot-pound is a measure of weight.
  12. Dotini

    Premium
    United States Seattle
    PSN:CR80_Shifty

    Are we quite sure light is the fastest thing?

    There is some indication that the electrostatic force travels much faster than c, and that gravity is a form of the electrostatic force, so gravity is essentially connected among particles, orbiting bodies, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters at a near-instantaneous speed. The Earth responds gravitationally to where the Sun is, almost right now (and the other planets, too, in their various positions) and not where they were some time ago where they would have been if gravity was restrained to the speed of light.

    Yours truly,
    Dotini
  13. Famine

    Administrator
    United Kingdom Rule 12
    PSN:GTP_Famine

    What's that then?

    [Citation needed]

    [Citation needed]

    Gravitation, not gravity. And since gravitation bends space-time (that's, in fact, how it exerts the effect that it does) then the Earth both "responds" to where the Sun is and was.

    Relativism FTW.
  14. Dotini

    Premium
    United States Seattle
    PSN:CR80_Shifty

    For the win?
  15. Jim Prower

    Premium
    Peoria, IL.
    PSN:gtp_jimprower

    Famine's explanation hurt my head...but this gives us all the more reason to invent FTL.

    Please.

    Soon.
  16. Azuremen

    Premium
    United States 509
    PSN:Azuremen

    Gravity acts by bending Space-time, thus Famines explanation.

    I tend to think of it is a ball in a Punch Bowl, in that the shape of the bowl determines the travel path of the ball. Yes, I know Gravity is what makes the ball move, but we have to simplify to some degree to explain what would effectively be a 4 dimensional "bowl."

    And Dotini, what are you talking about? The only faster than light phenomenon I am aware of is Quantum Entanglement.
  17. wfooshee

    Premium
    Panama City, FL

    I think he means that gravitational effects are instantaneous (thus FTL,) but his error lies in that gravity does not propogate in the sense that light, or particle motion, does.
  18. Dotini

    Premium
    United States Seattle
    PSN:CR80_Shifty

    I deny that gravitational effects are instantaneous. Above I said "near-instantaneous". As for the exact details of propagation of both light and gravity, that remains to be determined. I'm looking into it. I'll release additional information when I'm ready. Why hurry when you're learning something, having fun, and providing wholesome entertainment?

    As for any errors on my part, I admit to have made plenty during my relatively long life. Usually they come about by taking any one person too seriously.

    Everlastingly yours,
    Dotini
  19. Kovalex

    Montreal/ Quebec/ Canada
    PSN:Kovalex27

    You bunch of crazy big ass brains bumbaclots. lol
  20. niky

    Moderator
    Philippines Philippines

    But what if we're looking at the star through 10,000,000,000,000 kilometers of translucent gelatin?
  21. Azuremen

    Premium
    United States 509
    PSN:Azuremen

    Aether?
  22. Omnis

    Moderator
    United States Murica
    PSN:MP-Omnis

    Cliffnotes:

  23. TheCracker

    Premium
    South Korea North Korea
    PSN:GTP_TC / gtp_dan

    Yes, but for the purpose of answering the question 'how long ago did the light reach us from that star which is 165,000 light-years away' then using a light-year as a measurement of time in this instance is perfectly correct.
  24. wfooshee

    Premium
    Panama City, FL

    No, it's not, and if you answered an exam question that way you'd get a big red X on your paper. The light took a certain number of years to reach us, which is a measure of the time involved. It took that long because the star is that many light-years distant.

    Units measured with a hyphenated pair of designators are very common, and they measure neither of the items designated, but the combination. A newton-meter measures neither force nor distance, for example. It measures torque, a rotation force applied as a given force a certain number of units away from the item being turned.
  25. Vince_Fiero

    Premium
    Belgium G-D Luxembourg
    PSN:GTP_Vince_Fiero

    @ TheCracker

    Thanks, I had missed that.

    @ Famine

    space-time bending, makes if very difficult to follow.

    @ Dotini

    Your good at digging up quotes, but maybe if you find Famine's requests they should go in an other thread like "Faster then light: Dotini vs Famine" or "The end of the theory of Einstein".

    ================

    Back to the stars: 165,000 years ago
    Still did not see any confirmation or new theory effect

    So just states indeed these stars are more spectacular as expected.

    Wikipedia life cycle of our sun:
    [​IMG]

    Wikipedia on stars:
    They can be older, bigger and thus evolving faster, etc... all explained in current theory, just not expected, but possible.
  26. Dotini

    Premium
    United States Seattle
    PSN:CR80_Shifty

    I don't want any kind of standing contest with Famine. I'm too old and wear glasses. But I would like to convert him to my point of view. I believe I can once I get him to read Arp's book which TM is holding for him.

    If a theory can be found which successfully predicts that which is not expected in current theory, but which is actually found in unfolding observations, then that new theory is to be preferred. I believe the beginnings of such a new paradigm are near to hand in EU/PC (Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology).

    Respectfully yours,
    Dotini
  27. Famine

    Administrator
    United Kingdom Rule 12
    PSN:GTP_Famine

    Why is it important to "convert" anyone to your point of view? If it is the correct one and stands scientific scrutiny, it'll be accepted on its merits in time. No "conversion" necessary.
  28. DK

    DK
    Premium
    Ireland Ireland
    PSN:driftking18594

    Just ask Fred Phelps. :lol:
  29. Dotini

    Premium
    United States Seattle
    PSN:CR80_Shifty

    Oh, it's not necessary to convert just anyone to my point of view. But it would be quite salutary in your case, because you are an important fixture here at GTP forums, and could help with the paradigm shift (which will indeed take place in time if, as you say, it can stand on it's merits).

    Your critical faculties of a caliber which are quite worthwhile harnessing to a purpose. You're a very pretty prize, and play hard to get. But if it were easy, I wouldn't bother.

    Love and kisses,
    Dotini
  30. Famine

    Administrator
    United Kingdom Rule 12
    PSN:GTP_Famine

    As the actress said to the stamp collector, philately will get you nowhere.
Next Page »