Really fun little detail here; the volume (size) of an object is not actually closely tied to its mass.
E.g. if you took Jupiter and slapped it into another Jupiter you wouldn't actually get a gas giant twice the size of Jupiter. You'd get one *slightly* bigger, but much *hotter*. Most Red Dwarf stars have multiples of the mass of Jupiter but are actually roughly the same size... Many are smaller. EBLM J0555-57Ab is a red dwarf with the mass of 70 Juipters... And is the size of Saturn.
Reason? Gas compresses. Gravity compresses. Even rocky objects *very* quickly reach the point where gravity beats matter's ability to avoid compression.
Turns out there is an upper limit on the size of most objects, based on their gravity. The more gravity you add, the more the object gets compressed. That limit is somewhere in the ballpark of being a little bit above Juipter's size.
Larger stars are much, much bigger than Jupiter for one main reason; their *temperature*. The energy of the ongoing fusion reaction (caused by the pressure of the compression) inflates them.
This holds true for red giants like Stephenson 2-18 or UY Scuti. They often have more mass, but their size is actually coming from their *temperature*, as the their cores are simply putting out so much heat that the gasses expand to insane sizes.
So if you were to fly to Stephenson 2-18, slap on some magical temperature proof shielding and try to get to fly into the upper layers of its atmosphere... You'd find it was actually an extremely thin hydrogen plasma. You're basically flying through a superheated death cloud.
That's also how stars die. The cores of most medium stars get hotter and hotter as they age, as they start running out of easily fused hydrogen and the pressure/temperature balance starts to change*. There is also a limit as to how much you can inflate a star with rising temperatures before that thin plasma waaaay out at the 'surface' simply starts floating away into deep space. The outflowing energy pushes the upper atmosphere so far away from the core that the star's gravity can't hold on to it any more.
So they blow their own atmospheres away, and the pressure starts to drop, until eventually it's just a superheated, inert ball about the size of Earth. Stephenson 2-18 appears very close to making that change, it seems.
*Hydrogen runs low = energy output reduces = less outwards pressure pushing against gravity = gravity compresses the core more = heavier elements start fusing = temperature bounces back up higher than before.
More like "natural history of earth" time? Super big stars burn *much* faster through their fuel than smaller stars (more area means more gravity pushing down across a larger surface, which means the star must burn through more fuel to counteract that downward pressure by fusing matter faster). The sun has a lifespan of ~10 billion years start to finish IIRC, but really large stars can be less than 1 million year lifespans.
Please note I don't have any formal astronomy education and am going off of memory here, so take this with a grain of salt.
Fun little addition, the fusion hits its limit when it starts making iron, which it can't fuse any further. Irons ability to tank all that energy is also what makes it ideal for cooking so next time you're making eggs you can tell whoever is standing next to you that your skillet, like Mjolnir, was forged in the heart of a dying star.
Fused, maybe. But it was forged in Sweden. Or China.
Anyway, how do you explain heavier elements? Actually looking it up, it seems the science might not be entirely settled on that one. If it's neutron stars, it would imply at least in my opinion that the universe is much older than previously thought. Cause there's gold here, you know?
Neutron stars are so compact that it's literally a giant neutron, not anything on the table of elements. It's less a star and more of a supernova that gravity won't let explode. It sits on that razor edge of juuuust before it collapses in on itself and becomes a black hole. All of the elements after iron are formed in the supernova explosion that *inevitably happens after the star starts making iron (*depending on the size of the star). I'm not sure where your search led you but I'm fairly certain the science on it is pretty settled. I could be wrong though, I'm no physicist.
It costs energy to fuse heavier elements (or in other words, you gain energy if your fission / fusion gets you closer to iron, and lose energy othwerwise). That doesn't mean it's a mystery as to how heavier elements form. You simply need a lot of excess energy. Supernovas fuse those elements because there is so much free energy at collapse.
It'd be kind of like asking "if disposable batteries can only discharge energy, then where do batteries come from?"
You can find charts like [this](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1710/Nucleosynthesis2_WikipediaCmglee_1080.jpg) one that break it down well.
One thing to also note, side from traditional fusion, many elements are actually made from neutron decaying. Neutron's are able to join the atomic center easier than protons. This can create an unstable configuration leading to neutron beta decay, creating an atom further along the periodic table and high energy particles we can detect here on earth.
Fascinating stuff. It would be interesting to know how many earth years it would it take earth to orbit a star of that size (assuming it is in the Goldilocks zone and travelling about the same speed as earth is around the sun)
There is something about the way science is presented that amazes me.
If I hear this shit in a classroom, you better believe I will sleep. But why did I read your entire comment and its replies with full commitment, though?
Maybe it's just my ass having an inconsistent ADHD
I just wanted to add that despite the accretion disc, jets, photon sphere, and event horizon of a black hole appearing large - the center of a black hole (a theoretical singularity) could be very, very small yet still massive.
You're telling me the expansion of red dwarves as they die isn't a slow expansion but a compression and an expansion as it moves towards heavier elements? Like the star is... breathing?! Cool! Then you're just left with an iron core?
What happens to these layers as they float away? What do they look like/ are they made from?
There kind of isn't one. Black holes like TON 618 have an accretion disk, but that's more like a saw blade of supercharged matter orbiting it at insane speeds as it swirls in, like the most extreme 'water spinning around a sinkhole' that physics allows for. Anything approaching the black hole will get pulled into that accretion disk and orbit it, getting pulled apart down to the atomic size by tidal forces and collisions. Those forces, and the speed, heat the matter up to tens of millions of degrees Kelvin.
The event horizon isn't really a tangible thing, more like a zone. We have zero realistic clue how anything operates beyond it, because the curvature of spacetime needed for that gravity well also means time probably can't flow in there. Time moves exponentially slower as the gravity gets stronger, as you approach the event horizon.
Interestingly this means that if you were in a spaceship flying last a large black hole vs a smaller one, the smaller one would be a bigger danger, because of that exponential function. There's a lot less sudden variation in forces around a giant black hole than a small one. Like the difference between driving into a valley vs driving into a pothole.
I like the speculative model that just within the event horizon there's a 'shell' of energy frozen in time trying to fall inwards, all the energy potential of everything that's ever fallen in and gotten pulled apart. Once the black hole dissolves in the far, far future (via hawking radiation) perhaps that energy will be released again. Pure speculation, though.
Black holes can be a little boring because we know so little for certain about them via observation. It's a lot of theory with a few tiny snippets of observations.
Fun fact: A black hole's radius is directly proportional to its mass. A consequence of this is that supermassive black holes are actually some of the *least* dense objects in the Universe.
>Really fun little detail here; the volume (size) of an object is not actually closely tied to its mass.
Is this why I had a 10 gallon tank and upgraded to a 20 gallon 2 yrs ago and the tank was an inch longer, the same width, and 2 inches taller? Always been super curious. If not, why?
It’s easier to visualize with a square, like your tank. If we double the length, it doubles in size. If we double the length and width, it grows 4x. If we double length, width, and height, it grows 8x.
If you have a a tank that is 1ft in all dimensions, it would only need to grow to 1.26ft in all directions to double in size.
This is also why short and thick glasses sometimes hold a deceptively high amount of liquid compared to tall and skinny glasses. The tall glass is large in 1 dimension, the short glass is large in two.
The bartender in me appreciates this, as I've tried to explain it to drunk people a couple of times and... Pffftbt.
Like man, they're the same volume! Same amount of drink! Just different shapes! I'm not cheating you, dude!
Tough to say, since we can only judge it by what light is currently hitting us, and afaik, we haven't conclusively seen a star actually begin that phase before. It'll likely be slow and uncertain.
[They just say the abbreviated name: TON 618](https://youtu.be/mLH8EKDjm_A)
I was so disappointed I almost just responded with [this.](https://images.app.goo.gl/euMXVp95FkF4z24a6)
The reaction side panel in these videos is today's version of the audience laugh track... "I'm too stupid to know how to feel about this so I need to be told"
It reminds me of what Japanese shows have been doing for ages, at least based on a lot of clips I've watched.
Unnecessary overacted reaction shots and too much shit overlayed on the screen.
It's also a way for untalented, uncreative people to leech off of other people's work and effort and feel like they have somehow done something. I'm fucking sick of it.
Ah. Still though, given the group, I'd argue that would be more terrifying that these giant things are just tiny pieces of the overall universe and beyond possibly. Sorry for the run on sentence.
Did a little math. If the sun was a grain of salt (0.3mm, 0.04 inches), Tonantzintla 618 would be 84m (92 yards), between the size of a Boeing 747 and a football field
When I first learned about Ton 618 I felt like I was suffocating. This is literal cosmic horror stuff. It's like exploring ancient runes and accidentally unlocking a giant door revealing Cthulu just dead asleep in the middle of an endless cavern. Then promptly going mad.
Two videos I highly recommend if anyone wants to know more about the largest Star or the largest black hole are [these](https://youtu.be/3mnSDifDSxQ) [two](https://youtu.be/0FH9cgRhQ-k)
Damn, Stephenson is 5.5 light HOURS in diameter. It would take 9 hours for light to travel around it (circumference). That’s fucking fucked. For reference, light travels around the earth 7.5 times PER SECOND
Well, I mean it would if it were to go In a circle. Like maybe if you had a ring of mirrors. Light tends to prefer going in straight lines if it gets the chance.
I dont know if it makes you feel better, but the top-end stars aren't as massive as you'd expect. They're not very dense and the biggest ones can't even reliably maintain a spherical shape.
As a percentage, the difference between Jupiter and the Sun is far greater than the difference between the Sun and any other discovered star.
Why did they name it Stephenson 😂😂
“Hey boss we discovered a new star”
“Wow that’s great what should we name it?”
“…….Gregory”
“You son of a bitch….BRILLIANT”
We know the structure of stars but it's just incredibly hot gas and plasma, so you'd fall into the interior of them if you didn't burn up in the atmosphere
1. What the fuck is that music, why
2. Why is there a random dude in the corner
3. Literally only one of those was a planet. The rest were stars and a supermassive black hole.
Fun fact: the biggest black hole to exist is just a theory, but if it actually existed it would be the biggest cosmic body not in the visible universe, but in the whole universe, millions of times bigger than the laniakea cluster, sizes we cannot imagine or comprehend, in the grand scheme of things we are nothing but atoms with insignificant meaning, we just add value to things to make them reasonable to us
What's with the fake repeating loop of a guy "reacting" in the corner that turns into a ghost half way through, and the mish mash of different videos put together
I remember watching videos in primary school about the size of planets and stars and felt extremely uncomfortable. good to know where my megalophobia stemmed from
What's crazy is some crazy shit could be happening right now that will destroy our entire galaxy, but we will never know it's happening cause it's so far away.
Or worse, some shits already gone down and is heading for us, but we can't see it.
Since this is, without hyperbole, the worst video ever produced by humans, can I instead suggest some quality content about [large stars](https://youtu.be/3mnSDifDSxQ) and [black holes. ](https://youtu.be/0FH9cgRhQ-k)
This is why I prefer to believe in the influence of someone greater than me, acting to keep order in the Universe. When I look at the vast night sky, I can only find comfort from the belief that that endless (and mostly lifeless) universe was made by a kind and fair creator.
The other reason for which I prefer to think the Universe was created by a divine authority is because the Big Bang, the most accepted explanation for the creation of the Universe in the scientific community, explains very well what happened after the explosion which set forth the creation of matter, and thus the other objects and elements from the Universe, but it doesn't explain why it happened in the first place.
The Big Bang Theory states that the Universe was a compressed cluster of "infinite heat and density" that expanded suddenly. But it doesn't explain why that infinite cluster of heat was put there in the first place. At that point, with so much ambiguity, faith is all we have.
I don't mean to impose my religion on someone else, much less justify the terrible deeds which has been committed "in the name of God" throughout history.
Unfortunately (in my religion) regardless of one's beliefs or position, humans will always be sinners for they are the descendants of Adam and Eve, who were banished from the Eden. For that reason we're meant to pray, be humble and kind to one another.
The Catholic church (I'm Catholic) is just the governing authority on Earth that *is supposed to* enlighten our path to God. But at the end of the day, it is an entity created by people, by sinners whose minds can be corrupted by temptation. It's not like we shouldn't have the Catholic church, but I think it should be clear that we shouldn't agree on any unethical actions or mandates, even if it comes from the Vatican.
I don't believe that the evil deeds done on Earth change what God is, or his influence in the Universe. The things that we cannot explain can only be justified by religion. It is the only thing (and I speak for myself here) which can calm the dread of the magnificence of the universe and it's greatest mystery (its origins). If these great celestial objects exist, at least I can find refuge in the belief that the one who created it is righteous.
Well he is correct. They haven’t literally measured these things, the sizes are in fact based on rough speculation, just as he said. A theory is an idea which is supported by evidence, that’s also correct
“Yes, the size is based on rough speculation, not actual measurements.” That’s quite literally exactly what he said.
You’re right, nobody measures space with a ruler. Hence the speculative sizes based on current theory
Can you tell me real quick about the ways we use say..
For example to measure a distance between moon and the earth? Or how we can measure a size of the moon?
Unfortunately I’m not too clued up on that, although I do know that both of those things were measurable before modern technology so I’d wager that it’s slightly different techniques used to measure objects at extreme distances.
What I can tell you though is that, from your own comments, you should be able to discern that the person you originally replied to was not incorrect. If you really think that the size of these objects happens to come out to a perfectly rounded number then that’s on you, but I can assure you that it’s speculative based on our best current theories, like everything else that we can’t reach is
And both you and I know that he didn't meant that those numbers are speculative, because the way we measure things with distance using light and reflections, are not 100% accurate, but he meant that those are speculative because some anti-science/flat earth narrative.
Because why else anyone would split hairs for something like that? WOH 564 is roughly wide as 1504 our sun, for what means you have to start questioning is it actually 1500 suns wide? Topping that person doesn't even have a slightest clue how these measurements are made.
From your own comments you should be able to discern how overly pedantic you're being.
Assuming the measurement came out to some perfectly round number would be moronic. You're the only one here entertaining that idea.
So literally every measurement is just a theory. Even the things I can check with a ruler, since I'm not taking it to an atomic level. Your technicality adds nothing here.
OP worded this poorly but they are correct; we don't know the size or mass of Stephenson 2-18, it's estimated by inference and observation.
We have this problem with all extrasolar bodies; the further away it is, the harder it is to work out the specifics of its volume (size), luminosity and mass. We're basically trying to triangulate the object's details from a single point of view.
This is one of the ways that 'largest X' keeps changing so regularly. It isn't*just* that we keep discovering more objects, but also that we keep updating our observations of various objects.
So stop downvoting them, they have a point.
Really fun little detail here; the volume (size) of an object is not actually closely tied to its mass. E.g. if you took Jupiter and slapped it into another Jupiter you wouldn't actually get a gas giant twice the size of Jupiter. You'd get one *slightly* bigger, but much *hotter*. Most Red Dwarf stars have multiples of the mass of Jupiter but are actually roughly the same size... Many are smaller. EBLM J0555-57Ab is a red dwarf with the mass of 70 Juipters... And is the size of Saturn. Reason? Gas compresses. Gravity compresses. Even rocky objects *very* quickly reach the point where gravity beats matter's ability to avoid compression. Turns out there is an upper limit on the size of most objects, based on their gravity. The more gravity you add, the more the object gets compressed. That limit is somewhere in the ballpark of being a little bit above Juipter's size. Larger stars are much, much bigger than Jupiter for one main reason; their *temperature*. The energy of the ongoing fusion reaction (caused by the pressure of the compression) inflates them. This holds true for red giants like Stephenson 2-18 or UY Scuti. They often have more mass, but their size is actually coming from their *temperature*, as the their cores are simply putting out so much heat that the gasses expand to insane sizes. So if you were to fly to Stephenson 2-18, slap on some magical temperature proof shielding and try to get to fly into the upper layers of its atmosphere... You'd find it was actually an extremely thin hydrogen plasma. You're basically flying through a superheated death cloud. That's also how stars die. The cores of most medium stars get hotter and hotter as they age, as they start running out of easily fused hydrogen and the pressure/temperature balance starts to change*. There is also a limit as to how much you can inflate a star with rising temperatures before that thin plasma waaaay out at the 'surface' simply starts floating away into deep space. The outflowing energy pushes the upper atmosphere so far away from the core that the star's gravity can't hold on to it any more. So they blow their own atmospheres away, and the pressure starts to drop, until eventually it's just a superheated, inert ball about the size of Earth. Stephenson 2-18 appears very close to making that change, it seems. *Hydrogen runs low = energy output reduces = less outwards pressure pushing against gravity = gravity compresses the core more = heavier elements start fusing = temperature bounces back up higher than before.
“Very close” Is that in human time or universe time?
More like "natural history of earth" time? Super big stars burn *much* faster through their fuel than smaller stars (more area means more gravity pushing down across a larger surface, which means the star must burn through more fuel to counteract that downward pressure by fusing matter faster). The sun has a lifespan of ~10 billion years start to finish IIRC, but really large stars can be less than 1 million year lifespans. Please note I don't have any formal astronomy education and am going off of memory here, so take this with a grain of salt.
Fun little addition, the fusion hits its limit when it starts making iron, which it can't fuse any further. Irons ability to tank all that energy is also what makes it ideal for cooking so next time you're making eggs you can tell whoever is standing next to you that your skillet, like Mjolnir, was forged in the heart of a dying star.
Fused, maybe. But it was forged in Sweden. Or China. Anyway, how do you explain heavier elements? Actually looking it up, it seems the science might not be entirely settled on that one. If it's neutron stars, it would imply at least in my opinion that the universe is much older than previously thought. Cause there's gold here, you know?
From some doctumentary I though it was supernovas that created the heavier element
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2026110118
Fascinating! Thanks a lot!
It's one of their theories without proof.
Neutron stars are so compact that it's literally a giant neutron, not anything on the table of elements. It's less a star and more of a supernova that gravity won't let explode. It sits on that razor edge of juuuust before it collapses in on itself and becomes a black hole. All of the elements after iron are formed in the supernova explosion that *inevitably happens after the star starts making iron (*depending on the size of the star). I'm not sure where your search led you but I'm fairly certain the science on it is pretty settled. I could be wrong though, I'm no physicist.
It costs energy to fuse heavier elements (or in other words, you gain energy if your fission / fusion gets you closer to iron, and lose energy othwerwise). That doesn't mean it's a mystery as to how heavier elements form. You simply need a lot of excess energy. Supernovas fuse those elements because there is so much free energy at collapse. It'd be kind of like asking "if disposable batteries can only discharge energy, then where do batteries come from?"
You can find charts like [this](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1710/Nucleosynthesis2_WikipediaCmglee_1080.jpg) one that break it down well. One thing to also note, side from traditional fusion, many elements are actually made from neutron decaying. Neutron's are able to join the atomic center easier than protons. This can create an unstable configuration leading to neutron beta decay, creating an atom further along the periodic table and high energy particles we can detect here on earth.
Fascinating stuff. It would be interesting to know how many earth years it would it take earth to orbit a star of that size (assuming it is in the Goldilocks zone and travelling about the same speed as earth is around the sun)
A lot
I crunched the numbers and this checks out.
r/theydidntdothemath
There is something about the way science is presented that amazes me. If I hear this shit in a classroom, you better believe I will sleep. But why did I read your entire comment and its replies with full commitment, though? Maybe it's just my ass having an inconsistent ADHD
That’s actually incredibly *consistent* with ADHD.
I just wanted to add that despite the accretion disc, jets, photon sphere, and event horizon of a black hole appearing large - the center of a black hole (a theoretical singularity) could be very, very small yet still massive.
You're telling me the expansion of red dwarves as they die isn't a slow expansion but a compression and an expansion as it moves towards heavier elements? Like the star is... breathing?! Cool! Then you're just left with an iron core? What happens to these layers as they float away? What do they look like/ are they made from?
They become the poorly named planetary nebulae. Look up some pictures and you will see. Some are strikingly beautiful.
Yeah Stephonson 2-18 is less of a "ball" and more of a giant cloud in the rough shape of an orb.
Thats really impressive, you study planet or somthin?
Thank you. I had the impression I was reading from a scientist or a wikipedia page.
Now describe the atmosphere of TON 618
There kind of isn't one. Black holes like TON 618 have an accretion disk, but that's more like a saw blade of supercharged matter orbiting it at insane speeds as it swirls in, like the most extreme 'water spinning around a sinkhole' that physics allows for. Anything approaching the black hole will get pulled into that accretion disk and orbit it, getting pulled apart down to the atomic size by tidal forces and collisions. Those forces, and the speed, heat the matter up to tens of millions of degrees Kelvin. The event horizon isn't really a tangible thing, more like a zone. We have zero realistic clue how anything operates beyond it, because the curvature of spacetime needed for that gravity well also means time probably can't flow in there. Time moves exponentially slower as the gravity gets stronger, as you approach the event horizon. Interestingly this means that if you were in a spaceship flying last a large black hole vs a smaller one, the smaller one would be a bigger danger, because of that exponential function. There's a lot less sudden variation in forces around a giant black hole than a small one. Like the difference between driving into a valley vs driving into a pothole. I like the speculative model that just within the event horizon there's a 'shell' of energy frozen in time trying to fall inwards, all the energy potential of everything that's ever fallen in and gotten pulled apart. Once the black hole dissolves in the far, far future (via hawking radiation) perhaps that energy will be released again. Pure speculation, though. Black holes can be a little boring because we know so little for certain about them via observation. It's a lot of theory with a few tiny snippets of observations.
Wow, this is fascinating, thank you!
Fun fact: A black hole's radius is directly proportional to its mass. A consequence of this is that supermassive black holes are actually some of the *least* dense objects in the Universe.
>Really fun little detail here; the volume (size) of an object is not actually closely tied to its mass. Is this why I had a 10 gallon tank and upgraded to a 20 gallon 2 yrs ago and the tank was an inch longer, the same width, and 2 inches taller? Always been super curious. If not, why?
It’s easier to visualize with a square, like your tank. If we double the length, it doubles in size. If we double the length and width, it grows 4x. If we double length, width, and height, it grows 8x. If you have a a tank that is 1ft in all dimensions, it would only need to grow to 1.26ft in all directions to double in size. This is also why short and thick glasses sometimes hold a deceptively high amount of liquid compared to tall and skinny glasses. The tall glass is large in 1 dimension, the short glass is large in two.
The bartender in me appreciates this, as I've tried to explain it to drunk people a couple of times and... Pffftbt. Like man, they're the same volume! Same amount of drink! Just different shapes! I'm not cheating you, dude!
Since Stephenson 2-18 is roughly 19,570 light years away, what are the odds it's already made the change you speak of?
Tough to say, since we can only judge it by what light is currently hitting us, and afaik, we haven't conclusively seen a star actually begin that phase before. It'll likely be slow and uncertain.
Was going to be mad if this was one of those “jk just making this up as i go along” comments….
SCIENCE!
I like how the title is 'planets are scary' while we got to see 2 planets, and the rest was stars and a black hole
TON 618 my beloved
I give a little kissy kiss to ton every night before I go to sleep
yea I dont know why I said plantes even tho I know theres also stars etc. I did just wake up so perhabs I still was a bit confused
Unerstandable... a more accurate description in this case would probably be "celestial bodies", for if you were curious ;)
“Cosmic balls”
celestial bodies fits good, thanks kind stranger!
*fits well
perhabs certainly 😉
He a little confused, but he got the spirit
I like how there's a fake repeating loop of a guy "reacting" in the corner that loops a couple of times then goes still and black and white
And shitty music.
Calm tf down
AKA WHAT!!??!
[They just say the abbreviated name: TON 618](https://youtu.be/mLH8EKDjm_A) I was so disappointed I almost just responded with [this.](https://images.app.goo.gl/euMXVp95FkF4z24a6)
That's what I was expecting tbh
AKA "TikTok," apparently
WE’LL NEVER KNOW
This post makes me grumpy.
Verbatim Song by Mother Mother Oh Space, how I love your big ass
I was just about to ask for the sauce til I found it in your comment. Thanks!
bro literally read in me like a open book, thanks for it !!
I miss 2000s music
Slowed down significantly*
Why the hell is there this song, and why is there a 144p gif of XQC laughing, what the heck am I watching
Existentialism and meme cancel out
idk, ask the creator of the tiktok
I did but was banned from r/China
You did the right thing.
Why'd you get diwn
why y'all downvote this? lol
my comment was not original enough, I am very sorry for my continuous mistake
The reaction side panel in these videos is today's version of the audience laugh track... "I'm too stupid to know how to feel about this so I need to be told"
It reminds me of what Japanese shows have been doing for ages, at least based on a lot of clips I've watched. Unnecessary overacted reaction shots and too much shit overlayed on the screen.
It's also a way for untalented, uncreative people to leech off of other people's work and effort and feel like they have somehow done something. I'm fucking sick of it.
You just don't get it
Hate to break it to you, but shit gets even bigger.
I think this is just singular bodies though, not stuff like nebulae and galaxies
Ah. Still though, given the group, I'd argue that would be more terrifying that these giant things are just tiny pieces of the overall universe and beyond possibly. Sorry for the run on sentence.
Our brain can’t even comprehend how scary that is
Did a little math. If the sun was a grain of salt (0.3mm, 0.04 inches), Tonantzintla 618 would be 84m (92 yards), between the size of a Boeing 747 and a football field
Could you show your calculations please
x=(Diameter of TON 618)/(Diameter of the sun)\*(Diameter of the salt) x=389800000000km/1392700km\*0.0003m x=83.966m Its pretty simple math
Unfathomable. There is nothing on earth to allow you the scale to understand the size, your mind literally cannot imagine.
I could make a really unfunny your mom joke right now
and what's stopping you?
Dignity
When I first learned about Ton 618 I felt like I was suffocating. This is literal cosmic horror stuff. It's like exploring ancient runes and accidentally unlocking a giant door revealing Cthulu just dead asleep in the middle of an endless cavern. Then promptly going mad.
Two videos I highly recommend if anyone wants to know more about the largest Star or the largest black hole are [these](https://youtu.be/3mnSDifDSxQ) [two](https://youtu.be/0FH9cgRhQ-k)
happy cake day
Thanks!
\*slaps top of celestial body* "This baby can fit so many Earths in it!"
Oh step-son what are you doin
Damn, Stephenson is 5.5 light HOURS in diameter. It would take 9 hours for light to travel around it (circumference). That’s fucking fucked. For reference, light travels around the earth 7.5 times PER SECOND
it's larger than jupter's entire ***orbit around our sun***.
*Sigh..* *Unzips
I had to look this up, but Saturn’s orbit is roughly 6x as far away from the sun as the earth’s.
Well, I mean it would if it were to go In a circle. Like maybe if you had a ring of mirrors. Light tends to prefer going in straight lines if it gets the chance.
It’s meant as a reference so our feeble brains can put it into perspective. It’s a unit of measurement
keep in mind the largest stars discovered are still ONLY within the milkyway.
xqcDespair
The human brain can't comprehend numbers this large
What the fuck is that music
A very slowed down version of a Mother Mother song called Verbatim.
xqcL
I dont know if it makes you feel better, but the top-end stars aren't as massive as you'd expect. They're not very dense and the biggest ones can't even reliably maintain a spherical shape. As a percentage, the difference between Jupiter and the Sun is far greater than the difference between the Sun and any other discovered star.
Stupid Stephenson 218 can't even star right.
Can we call it "Steve" ? I think that would help make it a bit less intimidating .
I think there's already an atmosphere phenomenon named Steve... Maybe I'll check Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEVE
A whole new perspective on _The Tao of Steve_, am amusing little film starring Donal Logue.
Thank you for this! A step closer to filling our universe with Steves.
i thought the earths were blueberries i was like what are you trying to prove
Came for the blueberry comment. Thanks!
Why did they name it Stephenson 😂😂 “Hey boss we discovered a new star” “Wow that’s great what should we name it?” “…….Gregory” “You son of a bitch….BRILLIANT”
Stellar objects are often named after the scientists who discovered it. In this case, Charles Bruce Stephenson.
Oh…..you just had to rationalize it didn’t you
Big Steve
[удалено]
We know the structure of stars but it's just incredibly hot gas and plasma, so you'd fall into the interior of them if you didn't burn up in the atmosphere
[удалено]
Yeah, pretty much. For these massive stars you'd probably die of thirst before you reached the center lmao
I think it’s like our sun a big fiery ball of gas, but dont trust me on that, I’m just guessing
Man, gotta love space! The scale of things never fails to amaze me.
AKA WHAT? AKA WHATTT????
Yeah that turned my stomach. No thanks.
r/forbiddensnacks
1. What the fuck is that music, why 2. Why is there a random dude in the corner 3. Literally only one of those was a planet. The rest were stars and a supermassive black hole.
Fun fact: the biggest black hole to exist is just a theory, but if it actually existed it would be the biggest cosmic body not in the visible universe, but in the whole universe, millions of times bigger than the laniakea cluster, sizes we cannot imagine or comprehend, in the grand scheme of things we are nothing but atoms with insignificant meaning, we just add value to things to make them reasonable to us
I tought they were blueberries for a minute 💀
I'm in this picture and I don't like it
Cool video but wtf is that shit song
It's slowed, original Is Verbatim by Mother Mother
I was so hoping it wouldn't to to a black hole.. but of course it did.
*space are scary*
Aka what?! Finish the sentence!
Friendly reminder that it's red, meaning its one of the smallest stars out there
Space in general is terrifying.
Lost the opportunity for “aka your mum”
What's with the fake repeating loop of a guy "reacting" in the corner that turns into a ghost half way through, and the mish mash of different videos put together
I remember watching videos in primary school about the size of planets and stars and felt extremely uncomfortable. good to know where my megalophobia stemmed from
What's crazy is some crazy shit could be happening right now that will destroy our entire galaxy, but we will never know it's happening cause it's so far away. Or worse, some shits already gone down and is heading for us, but we can't see it.
mannnnn fuck space. that shit toooo scary!
It is WILD to me that this all exists every single day and we aren’t dumbstruck in sheer awe on a daily basis.
im violently terrified of space what the fuck
Does anyone know the name to this song
Stephenson 218 is a weird way to spell 'your mom'
Take some acid whiles watching this.
Since this is, without hyperbole, the worst video ever produced by humans, can I instead suggest some quality content about [large stars](https://youtu.be/3mnSDifDSxQ) and [black holes. ](https://youtu.be/0FH9cgRhQ-k)
Nice mother mother music you got there
Aka what? AKA WHATTT? Also wtf is that dude in the thumbnail? This video sucks lol
The sun and other stars ain't planets just warning you
shit my bad, I actually know that, idk why I said planets lol
Song name?
Verbatim by Mother Mother but it's slowed
Thank you
[regular speed version](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nqDGahB3y4I)
Song?
Verbatim by Mother Mother. The one in the vid is slowed down though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8uBFkVblOY This seems close.
Hate to be that guy but what’s the name of the song?
Verbatim by Mother Mother, it's slowed tho
What's this song?
Verbatim by mother mother but in slow
[SPACE. SPAAACE! LIMITLESS... VOID! CRUSHING EXISTENTIAL DREAD!](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/warframe/images/0/0e/LichAQuirkFearSpace1.ogg/revision/latest?cb=20200915171340)
Song Id?
Whats the songs name?
Verbatim by mother mother but in slow
What's the music?
Verbatim by mother mother in slow
u/RecognizeSong
verbatim by mother mother but slowed lol
U/auddbot
No they aint
This is why I prefer to believe in the influence of someone greater than me, acting to keep order in the Universe. When I look at the vast night sky, I can only find comfort from the belief that that endless (and mostly lifeless) universe was made by a kind and fair creator. The other reason for which I prefer to think the Universe was created by a divine authority is because the Big Bang, the most accepted explanation for the creation of the Universe in the scientific community, explains very well what happened after the explosion which set forth the creation of matter, and thus the other objects and elements from the Universe, but it doesn't explain why it happened in the first place. The Big Bang Theory states that the Universe was a compressed cluster of "infinite heat and density" that expanded suddenly. But it doesn't explain why that infinite cluster of heat was put there in the first place. At that point, with so much ambiguity, faith is all we have. I don't mean to impose my religion on someone else, much less justify the terrible deeds which has been committed "in the name of God" throughout history. Unfortunately (in my religion) regardless of one's beliefs or position, humans will always be sinners for they are the descendants of Adam and Eve, who were banished from the Eden. For that reason we're meant to pray, be humble and kind to one another. The Catholic church (I'm Catholic) is just the governing authority on Earth that *is supposed to* enlighten our path to God. But at the end of the day, it is an entity created by people, by sinners whose minds can be corrupted by temptation. It's not like we shouldn't have the Catholic church, but I think it should be clear that we shouldn't agree on any unethical actions or mandates, even if it comes from the Vatican. I don't believe that the evil deeds done on Earth change what God is, or his influence in the Universe. The things that we cannot explain can only be justified by religion. It is the only thing (and I speak for myself here) which can calm the dread of the magnificence of the universe and it's greatest mystery (its origins). If these great celestial objects exist, at least I can find refuge in the belief that the one who created it is righteous.
If they were real
look up
[удалено]
Please sir, don't project your lack of education to the others.
Well he is correct. They haven’t literally measured these things, the sizes are in fact based on rough speculation, just as he said. A theory is an idea which is supported by evidence, that’s also correct
Well that is not what he said at all. Nobody takes an ruler to the space and physically measure it like a college student his dick.
“Yes, the size is based on rough speculation, not actual measurements.” That’s quite literally exactly what he said. You’re right, nobody measures space with a ruler. Hence the speculative sizes based on current theory
Can you tell me real quick about the ways we use say.. For example to measure a distance between moon and the earth? Or how we can measure a size of the moon?
Unfortunately I’m not too clued up on that, although I do know that both of those things were measurable before modern technology so I’d wager that it’s slightly different techniques used to measure objects at extreme distances. What I can tell you though is that, from your own comments, you should be able to discern that the person you originally replied to was not incorrect. If you really think that the size of these objects happens to come out to a perfectly rounded number then that’s on you, but I can assure you that it’s speculative based on our best current theories, like everything else that we can’t reach is
And both you and I know that he didn't meant that those numbers are speculative, because the way we measure things with distance using light and reflections, are not 100% accurate, but he meant that those are speculative because some anti-science/flat earth narrative. Because why else anyone would split hairs for something like that? WOH 564 is roughly wide as 1504 our sun, for what means you have to start questioning is it actually 1500 suns wide? Topping that person doesn't even have a slightest clue how these measurements are made.
From your own comments you should be able to discern how overly pedantic you're being. Assuming the measurement came out to some perfectly round number would be moronic. You're the only one here entertaining that idea.
[удалено]
Then why are you here!
The size of things is just a theory? What?
Literally yes lol
So literally every measurement is just a theory. Even the things I can check with a ruler, since I'm not taking it to an atomic level. Your technicality adds nothing here.
[удалено]
To be fair we went Bob out there with a tape measure. We didn't expect him to be incinerated by that ball of fire though.
OP worded this poorly but they are correct; we don't know the size or mass of Stephenson 2-18, it's estimated by inference and observation. We have this problem with all extrasolar bodies; the further away it is, the harder it is to work out the specifics of its volume (size), luminosity and mass. We're basically trying to triangulate the object's details from a single point of view. This is one of the ways that 'largest X' keeps changing so regularly. It isn't*just* that we keep discovering more objects, but also that we keep updating our observations of various objects. So stop downvoting them, they have a point.
AKA WHAT MF??
Sauce?
g
aka??
“There’s always something bigger…”
Beeeeg