Space is big and shit.

Living in a binary system would suck for vampires.

that's a big ass star. Amazing it can stay together being as massive as it is. I'd be willing to say if that start were to go supernova in our life time, we would be able to see it regardless of what galaxy its in.

no offense sane, but there's a better video (i think) of this comparison here

That is about as UNCLEAR and CONFUSING as you could possibly make that concept. Whoever edited that video shoot blow their own fucking head off.

YouMakeKittyMad - No offense taken. Thats nice.

budzos - That's a lot of hate to heap on something this straightforward. Have you taken your meds today? Hell yes it's confusing. The human mind can't comprehend the enormity of size differences here so what difference does it make how it's presented? Check out YouMakeKittyMad's link if you want to see yet another diagram of we-are-small/this-is-big.

pwned.

Stirring music, but I agree with YouMakeKittyMad. The transitions in this video make it hard to keep track of the relative scale.

The wikipedia page for VY Canis Majoris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris

thats a big thing

>> ^Chaucer:
that's a big ass star. Amazing it can stay together being as massive as it is. I'd be willing to say if that start were to go supernova in our life time, we would be able to see it regardless of what galaxy its in.


Why would we be able to do that? If it goes supernova three million light years away, why would we be able to see it?

I understand the primary point of this video is to play badass industrial techno and show the enormity of space and all but it is scientifically misleading. These stars are point sources of light and can not be photometrically resolved. All those pretty pictures of marbles in this video are images of the sun, our sun, taken in different wavelengths (e.g. uv, x-ray, etc.), and then digitally shaded in visible colors. Upvote for giant stars with crazy names though.

Heres another one on this thats a bit smoother in showing scale.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Planets-and-Stars-animated-size-comparison

edit: oops, durr, this was already mentioned.

Even in space, Techno sucks.

Twinkle, twinkle, little star...

>> ^StukaFox:
Even in space, Techno sucks.


That's what I had to say. It sucks so much so hard that the point of this subject has been missed by the same distance as the biggest star's diameter known to Man.

>> ^lighthouse:
I understand the primary point of this video is to play badass industrial techno and show the enormity of space and all but it is scientifically misleading. These stars are point sources of light and can not be photometrically resolved. All those pretty pictures of marbles in this video are images of the sun, our sun, taken in different wavelengths (e.g. uv, x-ray, etc.), and then digitally shaded in visible colors. Upvote for giant stars with crazy names though.


Your point that they are artistically texturing the stars is correct, but your claim that the stars have too small an angular diameter to resolve is incorrect. For some massive stars it is possible

This wikipedia page has a picture of one of the stars, Betelgeuse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

Here's a picture of R Doradus from 12 years ago:
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-1997/pr-05-97.html

rychan,

Cool, I didn't know that. I was thinking it might be possible now with adaptive optics on earth and space telescopes. I was actually secretly hoping someone would correct me ... so thanks!

>> ^YouMakeKittyMad:
no offense sane, but there's a better video (i think) of this comparison here


You read my mind. Thanks for finding the link for me. I can't possibly upvote this annoying video.

>> ^lighthouse:
I understand the primary point of this video is to play badass industrial techno and show the enormity of space and all but it is scientifically misleading. These stars are point sources of light and can not be photometrically resolved. All those pretty pictures of marbles in this video are images of the sun, our sun, taken in different wavelengths (e.g. uv, x-ray, etc.), and then digitally shaded in visible colors. Upvote for giant stars with crazy names though.


that neubla on Eta Carinae is pretty sweet though.

>> ^AceOfKidneys:
thats a big thing


and yet, yo mama is still bigger

>> ^PerfectlySane:
budzos - That's a lot of hate to heap on something this straightforward. Have you taken your meds today? Hell yes it's confusing. The human mind can't comprehend the enormity of size differences here so what difference does it make how it's presented? Check out YouMakeKittyMad's link if you want to see yet another diagram of we-are-small/this-is-big.


So your argument is that because nobody understands the relative sizes of the stars, it doesn't matter that the video is edited in a way that makes a confusing mess of the concept? You didn't expect this video to educate anyone? Why did you post it, then? Because you like Juno Reactor?

>> ^mefa:
>> ^Chaucer:
that's a big ass star. Amazing it can stay together being as massive as it is. I'd be willing to say if that start were to go supernova in our life time, we would be able to see it regardless of what galaxy its in.

Why would we be able to do that? If it goes supernova three million light years away, why would we be able to see it?


Beat me to it.

I know I feel cheapened and humiliated because the pictures in this video are not of the actual stars. How can I even begin to make the comparison of our infinitesimal existence to that of the giant stars in the giant universe, when I am too busy judging the quality of the video posted?

It reminds me that I should finish reading Moby Dick. Well, by read, I mean that I should judge the quality of the paper and binding used to make the copy I'm reading. I'll get to the content of the book later.

>> ^thinker247:
It reminds me that I should finish reading Moby Dick. Well, by read, I mean that I should judge the quality of the paper and binding used to make the copy I'm reading. I'll get to the content of the book later.

The texturing is a significant part of the video content. I think your analogy is flawed. Complaining about the paper and binding of Moby Dick would be like complaining about the compression codec or your LCD monitor. Complaining about the texturing and the transitions would be like complaining about the spelling, grammar, clarity, realism or flow of a novel. All valid complaints.

>> ^thinker247:
I know I feel cheapened and humiliated because the pictures in this video are not of the actual stars. How can I even begin to make the comparison of our infinitesimal existence to that of the giant stars in the giant universe, when I am too busy judging the quality of the video posted?
It reminds me that I should finish reading Moby Dick. Well, by read, I mean that I should judge the quality of the paper and binding used to make the copy I'm reading. I'll get to the content of the book later.


Analogy fail.

My Cephai is bigger than Uranus.

Maybe this will help:

The Sun: It is one million times the size of Earth. If the earth were the size of a golf ball, the sun would be 15 feet in diameter.

2. Betelegeuse: It is twice the size of the earth’s orbit around the sun. If the earth were the size of a golf ball, Betelgeuse would be the height of six Empire State Buildings stacked on top of one another. 262 trillion earths can fit inside this star.

3. Mu Cephei: It is 3,000 light years away. If the earth were the size of a golf ball, Mu Cephei would be the width of two Golden Gate Bridges from end to end. 2.7 quadrillion earths can fit inside of this star.

How can you define quadrillion?
1 million seconds ago = 12 days ago
1 billion seconds ago = 1975
1 trillion seconds ago = 29,700 B.C.
1 quadrillion seconds ago = 30,800,000 years ago

4. Canus Majorus (the Big Dog star): If the earth were the size of a golf ball, Canus Majorus would be the height of Mount Everest. SEVEN quadrillion earths can fit inside of this star. That number would cover the state of Texas 22 inches deep in golf balls.

(From a talk by Louis Giglio)

Is there anything else you'd like to add, or are you going to continue sitting in the corner, eating paint chips?

>> ^budzos:
Analogy fail.

Fair enough, but I hope you at least understand the point I was trying to make.

>> ^rychan:
>>^thinker247:
It reminds me that I should finish reading Moby Dick. Well, by read, I mean that I should judge the quality of the paper and binding used to make the copy I'm reading. I'll get to the content of the book later.
The texturing is a significant part of the video content. I think your analogy is flawed. Complaining about the paper and binding of Moby Dick would be like complaining about the compression codec or your LCD monitor. Complaining about the texturing and the transitions would be like complaining about the spelling, grammar, clarity, realism or flow of a novel. All valid complaints.

>> ^thinker247:
Is there anything else you'd like to add, or are you going to continue sitting in the corner, eating paint chips?
>> ^budzos:
Analogy fail.



As opposed to eating what, the smart pills you sustain yourself with that give you the mental power to create such boneheaded analogies and see a video like this as something worth posting/watching?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Stingray.