It's probably better to be wrong at first. That way you get your assumptions broken, and potentially get a much clearer understanding of why x y and z are true
I get so excited when I learn that scientists come across something they can’t explain. It means we have the opportunity to learn something new about our universe.
Information is totally dependent on grant money. Want to succeed as a scientist? Support the latest fad hypothesis and call it 'consensus'. Grant funds magically shower upon thee!
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin That happens occasionally, but those people aren't scientists and they don't win Nobel prizes or have their work taken seriously.
Hey! Mandela effect in the thumbnail! Seems a lot of us distinctly remember “objects in mirror may be closer than they appear”, but the phrase has always been “objects in mirror are closer than they appear”. Despite my distinct memories of having read it a thousand times and seen it in movies as “objects may appear…”
0:52 "If you want to study the stars, you're going to want to use a telescope." For some reason, I assumed that that was going to lead into a sponsorship ad. "You should buy X brand of telescope because it's great for studying the stars!"
Did a SciShow channel just say that it's not the size of the telescope but how you use it? ;-) This just goes to show that there is always more to learn.
I know R136a1 held the title of most massive star for a long time but is it still considered the most massive star we know of? According to Wikipedia, Westerhout 49-2 and BAT 99-98 are more massive. Of course, all these stars lose a lot of mass over time so it is possible that R136a1 may have started out the most massive but as of now, it is the third most massive according to Wikipedia.
Huh that's pretty interesting. This is in my syllabus and it states that the largest stars found are around 300 Solar Masses and that supernovae from type III stars are the origin of most of our heavy metals. I wonder what else I've been learning all these years that could be wrong.
lol. How about this. The universe is a quantum wave function that is in the process of collapsing. How can a wave function collapse unless it is observed? Time makes no difference to the quantum world. It could be the cause of the Big bang hasn't happened yet.
I thought it was determined a while ago that neutron star collisions produced a great deal of the heavier elements in the universe. Can’t remember the exact amounts, but I am surprised this detail was not mentioned here. It seems like an important side point.
Some stars have brightly glowing heliosphere plasma which creates an illusion of being impossibly massive. Our Sun's heliosphere on the other hand glows very faintly.
Is it possible that we simply haven't found any 300+ solar-mass stars yet? The stars in the Tarantula Nebula are packed pretty close together so they probably had to share a lot of the material from the gas cloud they formed from. Maybe in order for a truly gargantuan star to form it needs to form alone, consuming the entire molecular hydrogen cloud it forms from into itself.
5:15 "a single (Pair-instability) supernova could seed more metals into the universe than all other supernovas combined." Wait. What? There must have been billions or trillions of other supernovas in the history of the universe. considering that, the quote is a *bold* statement.
So is this star formed from at least 99.99% Hydrogen and Helium? I swear I've heard a tiny amount of Lithium was also formed in big bang nucleosynthesis but can't seem to find a source listing anything *other* than Hydrogen and Helium forming in it right now and it hardly seems fair to compare a star with a meaningful amount of metal to one where we may not even be able to detect it's there.
I have a random question. I saw a post saying that the core of the Earth is two years younger than the rest of the planet due to time dilation. What I want to know is, how does time dilation effect the much more massive core of a star compared to rest of the stellar body?
How can we tell if a distant star/galaxy isn't made of anti-matter? Is it something to do with the polarisation of light emitted from it or something else?
It would have its own Eddington limit based on gravity and the radiation pressure generated by electroweak burning. It would also be at the very edge of being dense enough to collapse into a black hole, so I think that's the _real_ limit.
I’m sorry but UY Scuti, at 1700 x the diameter of our sun is the largest currently observed star. That means that approximately 5 billion suns could fit in it. So 2000 is nothing to get excited about.
I thought that a majority of the elements above Oxygen were made through neutron star collisions. Of course, really big stars also make elements up to Iron in their cores, but it wouldn't account for all the metals even below that. And above iron, well, you need supernovas and neutron star collisions. That's why every element heavier than iron is so much rarer than anything below it. And yet our modern world is only possible because of a bunch of elements heavier than iron. And no, not just gold. Any rare earth metal.
Neutron star collisions seem to favor heavy elements. Those between carbon and iron tend to be largely (but not solely) ejected in supernovae, though it should be noted that type 1a supernovae are a significant contributor. (Where an entire star's worth of matter can undergo runaway fusion, spreading a sun's mass of elements into the galaxy.)
That's a textbook example of how to separate easy marks from their money by publishing hilariously bad pseudoscience. Shilling for quackwads is not a good look for you.
Ground based telescopes... This may seem like a non-sequitur to some, but I feel like satellites in earth orbit should be subject to a per-orbit-year tax earmarked for astronomy. Constellations like Starlink make ground-based imaging a bit more difficult and I'd really like it if that were offset somewhat
Theres probably a ton of omega novas. Black holes arent singularities and if one eats too much... well the explosion is basically an entire periodic table.
Pray explain through what mechanism would a black hole _of stellar mass or above_ "explode", regardless of the presence of a singularity within its event horizon surface.
No, it just means there aren't any pair instability candidates visible today. That has no bearing on the early ages, in which many generations of O class stars could form and go supernova in just a few million years.
1:21 - "The larger the light-collectin area, the clearer the image comes out." - No, not exactly. The diameter of the aperture and not the collecting area is the factor that drives the resolution. But why do I have to tell you this? You should know it and I am sure you do! So the question really is: WHY DON'T YOU TELL IT AS IT IS INSTEAD OF TELLING BS ALL THE TIME!?
Im surprised about the biggest stars being "only" that big. I used to see comparitions where it looked like a millon suns could fit in the biggest stars
Your memory might be confusing size with mass. Our own sun, only a medium star in mass and size currently, will eventually become many 1000s of times bigger in size in its red giant phase but will not have added more mass.
Why would anyone expect to find a T3 in our galaxy? Perhaps in an orbiting Globular Cluster, that's only composed of extragalactic hydrogen, but not a polluted district, like our galaxy. And I'd expect these are more common in the early U, so shall not we employ JWST to canvas somewhere a few hundred thousand light years back in time? That would be so easy, LOL.
In the beginning the universe was uniform and the heaviest element was lithium at .05%. So there wasn't anything to form a core of a star and as the cloud slowly collapsed gravity pulled in all directions about the same, so no central core for mass to fall into. The size of the cloud was enormous, a proto galaxy. But nothing to form individual stars . So as the cloud condensed the pressure and heat eventually ignited a atomic storm blowing the whole cloud apart with the central 10% collapsing into a black hole
I have a possible solution to the dark matter/energy situation, if I'm wrong, could you explain why I'm wrong? Dark Matter solution (possibly?). What if the missing mass isn't from more atoms? Since interaction with the Higgs field is what gives things mass and that's due to subatomic particles. What if other places in the universe have higher numbers of subatomic particles per atom, or different ratios of subatomic particles that interact with the HIGGS field per atom? Could there be subatomic particles outside of atoms interacting with the higgs field, in a "non-visible through radiation" cloud in inter stellar/inter dimensional space, throwing all the models off? Alternatively, or additionally, is it possible for those subatomic particles to exist in the centers of the galaxies, or even black holes, without being contained in an atom? Or, if there's missing mass in planets, perhaps it's in the center of them? Related to this, black holes are supposed to be infinitely dense because gravity crushes everything infinitely small once a run away density is reached, yet the argument underpinning the "big bang" is that matter was crushed to closely, which created too much heat and energy Another idea: what if something stretches, or HAS stretched the HIGGS field, particularly if it happens unevenly, and thus differing interactions with it we see as gravity "not working" are just stretched in the Higgs field, like gravity warps space time? Also: If we don't have an explanation for uneven stretching in our universe, could it be from something occuring in the other dimensions predicted by string theory? I've also long wondered if some of the "missing" impact of gravity that I've been told happens, is due to it being stretched acroas multiple dimensions, perhaps some "dark matter" is this gravity bleeding back over from other parallel dimensions, possibly with the Higgs field as an intermediary somehow????
Maybe we don't have that much metal in the universe because we are living in the oldest parts of the universe. And all those stars have long been gone. If the Big Bang quickly cooled off all that plasma (energy) while expanding, and since we k ow there were hot spots and cold spots, then for sure some metals were formed all along the universe as the hot electrons crystalized into matter
Einstein didn't say that gravity doesn't exist. He said that it isn't a force. He described gravity as a curvature in space-time, instead of a type of ray or particle (like light for example). Also, Einstein wasn't always right anyways. Modern science did get quite a bit more understanding, since he was around.
@@NoNameAtAll2 thanks, there is so much new data coming out due to multiple new sensory platforms like Webb, it seems the universe is getting bigger and more difficult to keep up with
Gotta explain giant mature galaxy in less than 800 million years as is. Alot like the fossil record trying to explain ape to man on 800k year's. Or geological uniformity missing a billion years of stata . Insert Twilight zone music here
Not to quibble, but every star outside of our solar system is too far away to be seen with as much detail as the Sun. No matter how much our technology improves in its ability to image extrasolar stars (short of probes physically visiting that star) our ability to image our own Sun should improve just as much if not more.
I heard of an interesting theory that might explain the unusual size. A giant star has a black hole trapped inside, the black hole eats the excess radiation that would make the star normally expand keeping it stable at that massive size for some time.
For an "educational" channel this is a very low quality. I really doubt that any of you out there are astronomers/astrophysicists and thus actually knows and understands what he or she is talking about.
They were named in order of discovery (or theorizing) rather than actual time of emergence. Our regular sun and its fellow stars were the first we noticed and we went on from there.
This is typical. None of our ideas fundamentally explain observations. On the plus side it provides income for eejits like Neil de grease Tyson and Brian de'cock Cox to lay it on thick that we know everything. In truth we only succeeded in expanding our questions, not the answers and the current tenured academic leadership in theoretical astrophysics has clearly failed to predict anything much at all.
Well, ain't that just typical. The star went on a diet, burned off a bunch of mass, now it's "too small". There's just not pleasing scientists, is there. Poor star. 😘🤣
Scientists were wrong, and that's just as exciting as them being right.
Sometimes even moreso.
Something new to look at. 🤓
one of the few jobs being wrong can be more exiting then being right
Scientists being right isn't _nearly_ as exciting.
It's probably better to be wrong at first. That way you get your assumptions broken, and potentially get a much clearer understanding of why x y and z are true
I get so excited when I learn that scientists come across something they can’t explain. It means we have the opportunity to learn something new about our universe.
Information is totally dependent on grant money. Want to succeed as a scientist? Support the latest fad hypothesis and call it 'consensus'. Grant funds magically shower upon thee!
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin that's not how that works.
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin spoken like a non-scientist. Way to show your ignorance.
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin That happens occasionally, but those people aren't scientists and they don't win Nobel prizes or have their work taken seriously.
This speaker has become my favorite of the group. Lots of voice inflection and personality in his narration draws the listener in. Good work!
His tone also reminds me a bit of Neil de Grasse Tyson.
I do quite like his narration style
He's very well informed and not too prone to "dumbing it down" I like he isn't afraid to get the complexity across.
Hey! Mandela effect in the thumbnail!
Seems a lot of us distinctly remember “objects in mirror may be closer than they appear”, but the phrase has always been
“objects in mirror are closer than they appear”.
Despite my distinct memories of having read it a thousand times and seen it in movies as “objects may appear…”
0:52 "If you want to study the stars, you're going to want to use a telescope." For some reason, I assumed that that was going to lead into a sponsorship ad. "You should buy X brand of telescope because it's great for studying the stars!"
Its sad that ads made society into this
Reid is by far the best presenter on this channel! Laid back personality and his speaking is filled with clarity!
Currently, yes. I miss Hank tho, he had been great too
Takeaway message from the video "It's not just the size that matters, technique is important too"
Finally, someone admits that size AND technique matter.
You, sir, made me chuckle.
and a hot young star love that
@@littleollad3219 Finally? You must be dating the wrong stars.
Yes, matter can also produce small but efficient stars.
Ur mum's known that for years.
"It's not just telescope size that matters. Technique does too."
Unfortunately, I lack both
Sounds like he is plunging his telescope into black holes rather then looking at stars.
"No, baby... it only looks small because of the speckling."
This guy is my favorite SciShow nerd.
There's too much metal in the universe, how did this happen?
Eru and the Ainur: *singing soft opera*
Melkor: *playing a Dimmu Borgir album* ...what?
The universe is metal, man! 🤟🏻
Did a SciShow channel just say that it's not the size of the telescope but how you use it? ;-)
This just goes to show that there is always more to learn.
Nope, they said size AND technique matter.
Sounds like someone is plunging their telescope into black holes instead of looking at stars.
Where you point it is very important too
There's a `Just' in there.
I know R136a1 held the title of most massive star for a long time but is it still considered the most massive star we know of? According to Wikipedia, Westerhout 49-2 and BAT 99-98 are more massive. Of course, all these stars lose a lot of mass over time so it is possible that R136a1 may have started out the most massive but as of now, it is the third most massive according to Wikipedia.
Someone estimate how big that trenchcoat would need to be. For science.
Pretty big
*+*
'It was twelve stars in a trench coat'
Man and I thought having eight Kobold in a trnech coat was impressive.
Huh that's pretty interesting. This is in my syllabus and it states that the largest stars found are around 300 Solar Masses and that supernovae from type III stars are the origin of most of our heavy metals. I wonder what else I've been learning all these years that could be wrong.
lol. How about this. The universe is a quantum wave function that is in the process of collapsing. How can a wave function collapse unless it is observed?
Time makes no difference to the quantum world. It could be the cause of the Big bang hasn't happened yet.
I mean it's not exactly wrong, just not proven.
Thanks for the information and dedication.
I thought it was determined a while ago that neutron star collisions produced a great deal of the heavier elements in the universe. Can’t remember the exact amounts, but I am surprised this detail was not mentioned here. It seems like an important side point.
How? It is focused on this specific topic, which is fat nicer
Didn't we detect a possible pair instability supernova last year (or at least recently)?
SciShow Space says "R136a1 is the most massive star that astronomers have ever discovered."
What about BAT99-98 and Westerhout 49-2 ?
I think there is more uncertainty over the mass of the other two. Or simply an out-of-date claim.
Did I think the small size or the big size
I think it's about 30x sun
Knowing what we don’t know is better than not knowing what we don’t know.
What we ignore is greater than what we know nevertheless.
"Back my day, even the Stars were bigger!"
"Kids nowadays can't handle a few hundred solar masses!"
Some stars have brightly glowing heliosphere plasma which creates an illusion of being impossibly massive. Our Sun's heliosphere on the other hand glows very faintly.
One of these days, SciShow Space will feel comfortable enough to say "supernovae" instead of "supernovas."
"in a trenchcoat" made me lol
Anyone ever told you that Post Malone kinda looks like you ?
I hereby name you Space Malone ! Yep
I thought R136a was a refrigerant
Whenever I hear that voice I smile.. glad you're still here buddy!
You should do a video on all the proofs we have for the oort cloud???..???
Is it possible that we simply haven't found any 300+ solar-mass stars yet? The stars in the Tarantula Nebula are packed pretty close together so they probably had to share a lot of the material from the gas cloud they formed from. Maybe in order for a truly gargantuan star to form it needs to form alone, consuming the entire molecular hydrogen cloud it forms from into itself.
Curious Droid called ... He wants his shirt back...
Whoever made the thumbnail should get a raise
Pair instability supernovae are the coolest things ever!
It’s surprising how surprising the Universe is !
really nice video
Would like to see a few 🔭 Webb images of this and a few other supposedly massive ⭐🌟✨'s.
5:15
"a single (Pair-instability) supernova could seed more metals into the universe than all other supernovas combined."
Wait. What?
There must have been billions or trillions of other supernovas in the history of the universe. considering that, the quote is a *bold* statement.
For a second, I thought this was Penn Jillette voicing this.
So is this star formed from at least 99.99% Hydrogen and Helium? I swear I've heard a tiny amount of Lithium was also formed in big bang nucleosynthesis but can't seem to find a source listing anything *other* than Hydrogen and Helium forming in it right now and it hardly seems fair to compare a star with a meaningful amount of metal to one where we may not even be able to detect it's there.
I've heard about Lithium as well, but also that it decays fast it enough it doesn't stick around for long.
Here's a starter page with some good references for big bang lithium: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_lithium_problem
@@garethdean6382 Thanks.
Maybe they should start every assertion with "our current best guess"and end it with" information subject to change"
Stellar!
I have a random question. I saw a post saying that the core of the Earth is two years younger than the rest of the planet due to time dilation. What I want to know is, how does time dilation effect the much more massive core of a star compared to rest of the stellar body?
How can we tell if a distant star/galaxy isn't made of anti-matter?
Is it something to do with the polarisation of light emitted from it or something else?
Oh look, science changes again.
Oh look, another person who doesn't know how science works.
@@FuglyStick
Science is ever changing is how science works.
Would an electro-weak star break the Eddington Limit? 🤔
It would have its own Eddington limit based on gravity and the radiation pressure generated by electroweak burning. It would also be at the very edge of being dense enough to collapse into a black hole, so I think that's the _real_ limit.
Where is the video on the three supernovae?
Would a Warp space highway be visible
What about the paper published today about the new James Webb telescope very massive very early stars images?
Our entire triangulation of objects in space is wrong by a massive amount.
R136a1 sounds like a refrigerant.
I’m sorry but UY Scuti, at 1700 x the diameter of our sun is the largest currently observed star. That means that approximately 5 billion suns could fit in it. So 2000 is nothing to get excited about.
I thought that a majority of the elements above Oxygen were made through neutron star collisions. Of course, really big stars also make elements up to Iron in their cores, but it wouldn't account for all the metals even below that. And above iron, well, you need supernovas and neutron star collisions. That's why every element heavier than iron is so much rarer than anything below it. And yet our modern world is only possible because of a bunch of elements heavier than iron. And no, not just gold. Any rare earth metal.
Neutron star collisions seem to favor heavy elements. Those between carbon and iron tend to be largely (but not solely) ejected in supernovae, though it should be noted that type 1a supernovae are a significant contributor. (Where an entire star's worth of matter can undergo runaway fusion, spreading a sun's mass of elements into the galaxy.)
Someone has rewritten the text books. His name is Ben Davidson and His first text book is called The Weatherman's Guide to the Sun !:-)
That's a textbook example of how to separate easy marks from their money by publishing hilariously bad pseudoscience. Shilling for quackwads is not a good look for you.
Had me at “modern stars” 😅
Isn’t r136a refrigerant? 0:14
Cool shirt😎
Go Go Sci Show!
Ground based telescopes...
This may seem like a non-sequitur to some, but I feel like satellites in earth orbit should be subject to a per-orbit-year tax earmarked for astronomy. Constellations like Starlink make ground-based imaging a bit more difficult and I'd really like it if that were offset somewhat
Theres probably a ton of omega novas. Black holes arent singularities and if one eats too much... well the explosion is basically an entire periodic table.
Pray explain through what mechanism would a black hole _of stellar mass or above_ "explode", regardless of the presence of a singularity within its event horizon surface.
If Pop 3 Stars had pair instability supernovas, then Pop 2 stars wouldn't be known as low metal stars.....
No, it just means there aren't any pair instability candidates visible today. That has no bearing on the early ages, in which many generations of O class stars could form and go supernova in just a few million years.
Never stop digging, looking and putting two and two together. Look at relative abundances of minerals in our own crust.
1:21 - "The larger the light-collectin area, the clearer the image comes out." - No, not exactly. The diameter of the aperture and not the collecting area is the factor that drives the resolution. But why do I have to tell you this? You should know it and I am sure you do! So the question really is: WHY DON'T YOU TELL IT AS IT IS INSTEAD OF TELLING BS ALL THE TIME!?
what about BAT99-98 with 226 M☉ though?
Where the heck did lead come from..?
Im surprised about the biggest stars being "only" that big. I used to see comparitions where it looked like a millon suns could fit in the biggest stars
Your memory might be confusing size with mass. Our own sun, only a medium star in mass and size currently, will eventually become many 1000s of times bigger in size in its red giant phase but will not have added more mass.
It's because a higher energy output causes the outer layers to puff up, and have much lower density.
Maybe R136a1 and other non-metallic stars did like Nigel Tufnel and cranked it up to 11?
Every one of them take their turn as drummer.
Hi Reid!
Why would anyone expect to find a T3 in our galaxy? Perhaps in an orbiting Globular Cluster, that's only composed of extragalactic hydrogen, but not a polluted district, like our galaxy. And I'd expect these are more common in the early U, so shall not we employ JWST to canvas somewhere a few hundred thousand light years back in time? That would be so easy, LOL.
I wonder if r134a is cold 🤔
What about Stephenson 2-18? Over 500,000 times brighter than the sun! (Thanks, Kurzgesagt!)
It's "bigger" and brighter, not more massive
5:00 - WRONG!!!! Pair-instability supernovae can only happen in stars with a mass range from around 130 to 250 solar masses.
Dude's voice sounds like a young Penn Jillette.
In the beginning the universe was uniform and the heaviest element was lithium at .05%. So there wasn't anything to form a core of a star and as the cloud slowly collapsed gravity pulled in all directions about the same, so no central core for mass to fall into. The size of the cloud was enormous, a proto galaxy. But nothing to form individual stars . So as the cloud condensed the pressure and heat eventually ignited a atomic storm blowing the whole cloud apart with the central 10% collapsing into a black hole
I have a possible solution to the dark matter/energy situation, if I'm wrong, could you explain why I'm wrong?
Dark Matter solution (possibly?). What if the missing mass isn't from more atoms? Since interaction with the Higgs field is what gives things mass and that's due to subatomic particles. What if other places in the universe have higher numbers of subatomic particles per atom, or different ratios of subatomic particles that interact with the HIGGS field per atom?
Could there be subatomic particles outside of atoms interacting with the higgs field, in a "non-visible through radiation" cloud in inter stellar/inter dimensional space, throwing all the models off?
Alternatively, or additionally, is it possible for those subatomic particles to exist in the centers of the galaxies, or even black holes, without being contained in an atom? Or, if there's missing mass in planets, perhaps it's in the center of them?
Related to this, black holes are supposed to be infinitely dense because gravity crushes everything infinitely small once a run away density is reached, yet the argument underpinning the "big bang" is that matter was crushed to closely, which created too much heat and energy
Another idea: what if something stretches, or HAS stretched the HIGGS field, particularly if it happens unevenly, and thus differing interactions with it we see as gravity "not working" are just stretched in the Higgs field, like gravity warps space time?
Also: If we don't have an explanation for uneven stretching in our universe, could it be from something occuring in the other dimensions predicted by string theory? I've also long wondered if some of the "missing" impact of gravity that I've been told happens, is due to it being stretched acroas multiple dimensions, perhaps some "dark matter" is this gravity bleeding back over from other parallel dimensions, possibly with the Higgs field as an intermediary somehow????
Is it me? Or does he sound like the lead singer from Hinder?
Reid is the best
Forgive my ignorance, but the bigger the star the faster they die right so something like that size dies in less than a billion years right?
It's not just size that matters it's technic
Maybe we don't have that much metal in the universe because we are living in the oldest parts of the universe. And all those stars have long been gone. If the Big Bang quickly cooled off all that plasma (energy) while expanding, and since we k ow there were hot spots and cold spots, then for sure some metals were formed all along the universe as the hot electrons crystalized into matter
Science.
As per Einsteain there is nothing called "Gravity or gravitational force" then why scientist mention always gravity?
Einstein didn't say that gravity doesn't exist. He said that it isn't a force. He described gravity as a curvature in space-time, instead of a type of ray or particle (like light for example).
Also, Einstein wasn't always right anyways. Modern science did get quite a bit more understanding, since he was around.
Take a step or closer to it, it will look bigger when you do.
Was that some adult humor at 1:36 lolololol?
So this " star" is somewhere between our galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy because our galaxy is slightly over 105,000 light years across.
yep, it's in Large Magelanic Cloud - one of minor galaxies around Milky Way
@@NoNameAtAll2 thanks, there is so much new data coming out due to multiple new sensory platforms like Webb, it seems the universe is getting bigger and more difficult to keep up with
Gotta explain giant mature galaxy in less than 800 million years as is. Alot like the fossil record trying to explain ape to man on 800k year's. Or geological uniformity missing a billion years of stata .
Insert Twilight zone music here
Not to quibble, but every star outside of our solar system is too far away to be seen with as much detail as the Sun. No matter how much our technology improves in its ability to image extrasolar stars (short of probes physically visiting that star) our ability to image our own Sun should improve just as much if not more.
Fascinating to watch a presenter talk about a subject he cannot understand to an audience that will never understand the subject .
This guy sounds almost exactly like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
UY Scuti is the BIGGEST star in the universe. R136a1 is the HEAVIEST star in the universe. That is the difference here.
theres also a different between weight and mass
I heard of an interesting theory that might explain the unusual size. A giant star has a black hole trapped inside, the black hole eats the excess radiation that would make the star normally expand keeping it stable at that massive size for some time.
Check your reflection in a mirror before filming. Couble boogers are disconcerting.
Objects in mirror are larger than they appear.
ARE, not "may be." Go check.
For an "educational" channel this is a very low quality. I really doubt that any of you out there are astronomers/astrophysicists and thus actually knows and understands what he or she is talking about.
Why did population III come first?
They were named in order of discovery (or theorizing) rather than actual time of emergence. Our regular sun and its fellow stars were the first we noticed and we went on from there.
@@garethdean6382 doh, seems obvious now. Cheers!
Those are some big words coming from a bunch of tiny human scientists
This is typical. None of our ideas fundamentally explain observations. On the plus side it provides income for eejits like Neil de grease Tyson and Brian de'cock Cox to lay it on thick that we know everything. In truth we only succeeded in expanding our questions, not the answers and the current tenured academic leadership in theoretical astrophysics has clearly failed to predict anything much at all.
Well, ain't that just typical. The star went on a diet, burned off a bunch of mass, now it's "too small". There's just not pleasing scientists, is there.
Poor star. 😘🤣