Unexplained Observations From the Largest Star Ever Found (WOH G64)

[@crawkn]

The most significant thing I have learned from this channel is not to be surprised by any new discovery, since it seems to be almost every week we are hearing of things being observed which were thought impossible. It really puts things in perspective regarding a healthy degree of uncertainty or skepticism. But it is the discovery, not the certainty, that keeps science interesting.

[@beta1451]

why ive always loved science, we as humans tend to think we know everything, when the truth is there is a vast amount of knowledge we know nothing about and even think impossible

[@crawkn]

@beta1451 it's closer to the truth to say we know nothing, than everything. The more you know, the greater the cost of new knowledge. Kind of like a video game.

[@joemcintyre2090]

duh it's a big universe. 🙂

[@crawkn]

@@joemcintyre2090 big doesn't equal incomprehensible.

[@Zeuskabob1]

@@crawkn Absolutely. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. The process of discovery is endless for this exact reason, and it's why science is so fulfilling. I wish more in science would embrace your initial stance: "It's the discovery, not the certainty, that keeps science interesting". So many scientists are focused on certainty, which while valuable for industry, isn't what advances the field. Only by discovering new and heretofore unknown phenomena can we advance our knowledge.

[@senchirai]

Honest-to-goodness, Anton, I hope these videos allow you to do nothing else for money, except make these wonderful wonderful science videos.

[@JBCCT01]

Agreed.

[@joecausey8508]

I'm sure Anton has a VERY comfortable income from all these videos.

[@mNag]

He has over a million subs... I know other KZbinrs who were able to quit their jobs and just do KZbin full-time when they hit something closer to 100k subs. He's likely pushing a 7-figure income.

[@joecausey8508]

@@mNag Yes, I know a KZbinr who paid for her fine mansion with YT. And she's barely 20 years old.

[@grahambate1567]

Another really interesting video, thank you Anton

[@chriscadman6379]

Anton is the biggest star in this astronomical genre.

[@Vinnie_Paz_The_G.O.A.T_420]

Actually Anton is wrong Westerhout 49-2 is larger and more massive than WOH G64 and Stephenson 2-18 google it

[@Pisti846]

At 160,000 light years away, the star may have already gone supernova long ago!

[@dreadogastusf3548]

I guess that's relatively true.

[@jdlech]

I'm willing to bet you a million dollars that it just did.

[@geoffstrickler]

Only in its local frame of reference. It hasn’t gone supernova in our frame of reference.

[@lasarith2]

@@jdlechgiven that Wikipedia says it’s 5 million years old ( at a mass of 25 sol it would only have 3.2 million years ) so it has to be around 20 mass sol for 5.5 million so in effect it either has done or will do in 430,169 years .

[@philochristos]

@@geoffstrickler Maybe if we get on a bike and ride in the right direction, it will undergo supernova, but we can't undo it by changing directions.

[@jonnybritnorth7966]

Fascinating! Incredible that we are around to witness all these breakthroughs in the visible universe. These distances are just incomprehensible.

[@Jefuslives]

"objects in telescope are closer than they appear"

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

If they are indeed inside telescope rather than the telescope's view that might just be true.

[@Hatin.ontonio]

Doesn’t it seem like something is literally coming towards earth? Or am i crazy

[@NullScar]

​@@Hatin.ontonio💡

[@jaymxu]

​​@@Hatin.ontonioWhat? ... Huh?? Yeah no idea what you're talking about but no you must be crazy. Because number 1, the main comment is just a reference to commercials and information to drivers on the road, when looking in your side mirrors or the rear mirror things appear much closer, it refers to why a lot of accidents happen, to be cautious. As for the telescope thing, if that's what you're talking about then no because they're redshifted first of all, so that alone is a big no, and you can only see them through telescopes that run a certain time for more exposure otherwise they're not visible in real time.

[@MUSHROOM7981]

​@@FrancisFjordCupola Tell that to rearview mirror manufacturers, grumpy

[@the80hdgaming]

WOH!!! That's a huge star!!! 😮😂

[@pauldavis3278]

WHO?

[@archonjubael]

Man. I love these videos. I can watch them with my kids, too!

[@cooltubes547]

WOH! That’s a big star.

[@Democritus8181]

Anton, you're the Carl Sagan of the internet. Don't ever stop.

[@BerndSchnabl]

hmmmm..... I think this honor belongs to Brian Cox

[@Alondro77]

Everyone, "HOW DID THE START GET SO BIG??!!!" Star, "I eat McDonalds 3 meals a day, every day!" Everyone, "That makes sense."

[@edwardneilsen2139]

No it only eats McDonald's 6 days a week, on the 7th Day it eats Taco Bell. That explains the gas emissions.

[@rogwarrior1018]

Super Size Me!

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🤘🙂

[@bensullivan9478]

0:57 i thought he said "your wifes cookie" 😂😂

[@zanbudd]

Me too! Do you know what he did say?

[@sfall616]

UY Scuti ​@@zanbudd

[@zanbudd]

@ 🙏🏼

[@darylbrown8834]

Read the comment first' watched vid. and couldn't unhear it.😆

[@gergelyfliegauf5287]

@@sfall616

[@laurasee6358]

Thank You Anton❣ You truly are A WONDERFUL PERSON🙏❣🌌 Happy to aee you on bluesky🤟

[@mariuquidiello]

All you say and investigate is fabulous ! Thank You 🙏🏻💕

[@DougKoper]

Thank you much for making astronomy understandable.

[@deealex1402]

fascinating. good input Anton.

[@redhedkev1]

Another excellant video, Anton. Well done.

[@DamonNeri]

Stars must have gotten bigger, in the cosmic past. when, the interstellar medium was still magnetic plasma gas

[@underthemoon-p7q]

This is the beginning of an amazing physics rap

[@MyCatJeff]

The Z pinch on a filament? Two stars nearby already ejected.

[@underthemoon-p7q]

@MyCatJeff suspected injective retrospective set of matrices?

[@takanara7]

Plasma gas has too much energy to contract and form stars. Gas needs to cool down to cold molecular hydrogen (H2) before it becomes stars.

[@jaymxu]

Wel they must have been bigger regardless because everything was closer together, and they didn't live long so they exploded quickly, creating the first black holes, the gas ejected from them then collected around those black holes, creating the first galaxies, within that they then exploded and everything keeps getting smaller and smaller, our sun is a 3d generation star.

[@danoblue]

Some of our current theories are probably too simplistic, based as they are on observations by inferior instrument to what we have today. Now that we can see more complexity, we will just simply have to adapt our theories to what is observed and discard those which don't fit. Anton, your choice of topics allows for very stimulating viewing. Scientifically speaking, we live in exciting times.

[@yomogami4561]

thanks for another informative video anton

[@jdlech]

We're only at the Very Large Space Telescope. Wait till be build the Extremely Large telescope. The there will be the Massively large telescope, then the absurdly large telescope. Then we will build the Insanely large telescope. That one will see a matchstick struck at the moment of creation. Which will be really puzzling because nobody predicted it to be a safety match.

[@JustinMShaw]

Crossing my fingers for the sighting of the guy looking for a circuit breaker at the center of every black hole.

[@rogwarrior1018]

The humongous, extra large, very big, telescope so big it will see the strike on the strike plate....

[@BarbarisII]

Don't forget about the "F**king massive telescope"

[@jdlech]

I shit you folks not. When I was a kid, they were advertising pain relievers on TV. First they came out with extra dose. Then maximum dose. Then they came out with ultra dose. I was waiting for someone to come out with over dose.... that's when the Tylenol scare hit Chicago. Nobody advertised it, but we really did get overdose strength Tylenol.

[@MrConspark]

Wonderful stuff 🌟✨👌 thanks Anton 🤓

[@gabbyn978]

What if the expelled material is not drifting away in a spherical shell, but as a disk (because of the rotation), and we are looking onto this disk at a skewed angle?

[@nilshibyhansen1969]

💫💫💫💫💫 You can trust on delivery from Anton

[@Crazyhorse75-u2z]

Id hate to be in the neighborhood when that baby goes supernova. I know it is not going to do that any time soon, but when it does, I wonder if it would be visible from here?

[@stumby1073]

Thanks Anton

[@GrinninPig]

Hope you keepin warm up there Anton, space is cold this time of year

[@PatrickPoet]

I like that you don't say things are impossible when the actual thing is that a simulation failed to depict reality. You used to put it in your titles and I'm super glad you don't anymore. After all science is about discerning truth, right? It was the only thing that fell short of amazingly wonderful in your channel and now I can just bask in the glow of your excellent science communication.

[@stoneageprogrammer432]

LOVE YOU, ANTON!!!

[@DannyHorn-x1x]

I love your channel Mr Anton your amazing young man. Old stargazer

[@robertloten8548]

Could the odd shape of the gas cloud be because we are looking at it from an angle and not straight on?

[@Kunzopolis]

really awesome video, thank you!! 💙

[@Jodie-G198]

"There's always a bigger fish." I shoulda known that we'd find a star that's larger than even Stephenson 2-18. Just that the mind-melting size of the latter, got me complacent.

[@Zeuskabob1]

The explanation of an O-type binary partner seems very strange for a couple of reasons. First and most confusing: an O-type star would have at least 10% the luminosity of WOH G64, and with the remarkable emission spectra of 30,000 K. Even if the surrounding dust were to absorb all the emitted light, its vastly increased temperature should show up as one of the dust lobes being brighter than the other. The second, and less strange, part is that O-type stars have very short life-spans, on the order of 10 million years. If that were the case, this would have to be a recent capture. It feels to me that it'd be more likely a black hole partner, but that would have very obvious gamma ray emissions so is also ruled out by lack of observed gamma rays near this star. What a mysterious star! I also can't believe that it could be 3000 solar radii in size, that's unimaginably enormous!

[@stargazer5784]

It's worth noting that all giant stars are relatively short lived, so a red supergiant paired with an O type giant isn't actually too far fetched. However, one would think that it would cause at least some IR emissions from the dust torus, even if entirely cloaked. Maybe, maybe not. The 3000 solar radii figure is just speculation of what it's original size may have been, while remembering too that red giants of such enormous proportions are essentially what have been called a 'red hot vacuum', because most of the star's visible structure is very tenuous in nature. The star doesn't really have a well defined surface or limb, as it were. Because of this, placing firm constraints on the radius becomes somewhat problematic. We can only say that at a given color/temperature, at a given distance, and with a given apparent magnitude, the radius should be at least so and so. With objects that are much closer, interferometric (aperture synthesis) measurements can be used to get a much more accurate measurement, but I'm guessing that this one is just too far away. Cheers!

[@edwinhuizinga3042]

You touch on this briefly, but we're not looking at the star itself. What we see is an oval cocoon of gas and dust around the star. The star itself is about 10 times smaller and would be a bright point in the middle of the cocoon. However, it is too dim or too much obscured to detect.

[@gtziavelis]

star core picks up mass or rotational speed, and the excess angular momentum dynamics cause the upper gases in the atmosphere to not be able to hold on gravitationally, so they get partially hurled away in two symmetric equatorial countervortices? that's my guess for that wobbly instability.

[@DavidBrown-zp5vs]

The gravitational forces on the extremities of a star that large are going to be so much weaker compare to the central area, that with the fact that the star in the same area will be less dense means it make much more sence that the star wont be a nice round shape and it would be bulgey in places. Dont forget its ejecting mess out too, that would explain the stuff around it, its chaotic so it shouldnt form a stable spinning disk around the star.

[@paulcollins8122]

Brilliant video

[@cellschannel8959]

I hate this.....I use to hate outer space stuff when I was younger I still hate it. .. but I like your channel you along with alot of other people in media helped be hate less of anything that happens outside our dirt ball called earth.... 2003 and 2006 when I was a teen was really considering ending my life....there was many silly reasons why ... But one of them was the fear of what tv and even family claimed was going to happen to the sun and beyond that soon....I wasted alot of my teen years afraid of outer space. Your channel along with other KZbin channels and me trying to open my mind which I did do as a child helped me think just enough to not do something so stupid and not be afraid of our universe....thank you for making sure everyone who sees your channel knows what you know to not feel afraid about life but instead know better to help your fellow.... Kind.

[@manooch]

I saw this quoted line online :"Yes, light is a thing: Waves and particles: Light can be analyzed as both a wave and a particle", so that means those are particles of that star reaching us after 160,000 years

[@yvonnemiezis5199]

Nice video,thanks Anton 🐇👍❤

[@darthvirgin7157]

so this star already went SUPERNOVA tens of thousands of years ago, but the light hasn’t reached us yet.

[@wilcofaber9863]

Indeed a lot of different youtube stories about the biggest star

[@benvandermerwe4934]

Thanks for great a great entertainment and educational channel.

[@callejondorado]

I am a little confused. You had said in previous episodes that after 1.4 to 2.5 solar masses, the start will become a neutron start, but this big star has 40 solar mases and it is not a neutron star. Can you make an episode to resolve this apparent contradiction?

[@ianstopher9111]

Neutron stars happen after collapse (such as in a supernova). The fusion reaction creates pressure that keeps a star like WOH G64 from collapsing. Once that pressure goes and there is core collapse then there are limits to how much mass can be held together. The neutron star is prevented from collapsing further by degeneracy pressure: which has an upper mass limit as you mentioned.

[@stargazer5784]

The end result neutron star, or black hole if the core mass is beyond about 3.2 solar masses, comes after the supernova, not during the red giant phase.

[@MozartificeR]

I saw a video that said they found artificial light on one of the Trappist planets:) It might be a good topic to cover. Wonderful person Tshirts are on sale in the store:)

[@nocturne3455]

Ur telling me they could have named it WHO and chose not to?

[@mimetype]

You're is spelled You're and you typed ur.

[@axle.student]

Thanks Anton :) > 1:55 This is also a similar problem that I see with these galaxies that are too well formed in the early universe. More likely they are just further away in space and closer in the time line.

[@jaymelton2663]

I wonder if a high spin rate could cause the stretched formations - we could be looking at it spinwards with the poles at each flattened end. If the star is massive and low density I'd imagine a high spin rate could cause clouds to escape at the equator, with less and less as you go to higher latitudes. That might account for the squashed shape of the clouds.

[@jaymelton2663]

I could also imagine a scenario where the plasma in the outer layers might pile up due to turbulence creating an imbalance in the star over time - once it reaches a certain tipping point, the entire blob is thrown off creating the large dip in luminosity.

[@sirensynapse5603]

Fun fact: the star got it's name partially from two things uttered by the two dudes who first saw it. Whoah! and Gee!. 64 was summat to do with its location on the galaxy map.

[@plamenzlatev1206]

8:15 basically this is not a star , its a irregular galaxy ... most probably small irregular galaxy and very old

[@alexbertran3873]

Great video

[@KingdomDumb]

Great video as always 😹

[@robgilmour3147]

The partners could be gas giants inside the star, planets don't necessarily get consumed when a star god red giant, the planets often stay in orbit even after spending a few million years inside

[@epiccurious3536]

It makes me wonder how many worlds and possibly civilizations are within the kill zone of the largest star in the visible universe and if they have the capability to understand their predicament. It might be a good place to look to see if we can detect the techno signature of a civilization's mass exodus from the death zone.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

Losing a Jupiter-mass each year could go a long way to explain a huge amount of dust around it. Interesting star to study, not really suited to leaving close by to and luckily we don't.

[@calebpruett2537]

Hi Anton i know your getting blown up with uap questions but I was curious if that was something you were going to make. Im interested in what your thoughts are on such groundbreaking information

[@eventsandentertainment4594]

any thoughts on why the Blaze Star is late?

[@Darkmattermonkey77]

I like how you phrased that. Largest star discovered, yet. Every time we claim to have found the biggest star, another larger one is found afterwards.

[@BarbarisII]

I always listen for these kinds of things. It's hard to take an astronomer seriously when they talk like they've seen it all lol

[@andycordy5190]

I remember, as a child, enjoying the Guinness book of records for it's lists of biggest, fastest, strongest. With all the fascinations of space, the race to find the biggest star seems childish until we see that they are growing or shrinking or about to go supernova and otherwise being something much more interesting than big.😊

[@brianmchugh7679]

4:50 I take issue a bit with explaining mass loss of Jupiter (Earth annual) as super significant. considering the mass of Jupiter is not as much as perceived.

[@kickerpunter8414]

I think I'm noticing a pattern here. It seems to go like this: "We don't know yet." "We have no idea," "We're just guessing," & "It could be this, that or the other, but we don't know yet" (It could be anything).

[@RhinoTheTerrible]

Those who don't say those things never learn.

[@kickerpunter8414]

@@RhinoTheTerrible That's the point. That's all he says.

[@MisterKnightly]

I'm always rooting for VY Canis Majoris to end up as the biggest. It's always been my favorite.

[@philochristos]

I'm more of a cat person.

[@MisterKnightly]

@philochristos HD 85951 then is it?

[@philochristos]

@@MisterKnightly Yes!

[@JustinMShaw]

It's a fleeting thing, though. Stars are only like this during their terminal red supergiant phase while they spew out enormous quantities of their own material.

[@MisterKnightly]

@JustinMShaw Fleeting, but wonderful.

[@icekangz817]

Basically the current biggest newest thing at the moment because something bigger newer hasn't been detected yet. I like how scientists say tthey haven't been disproved yet they can't prove anything either.

[@philochristos]

If it's the biggest it's possible for a star to be, isn't it safe to assume it's the biggest there is? I mean any other star that might compete could only be AS big.

[@davidhoward4715]

@icekangz817 If you knew anything about science, you would know that scientists don't "prove" anything. They use evidence from observations to support or refute theories.

[@3characterhandlerequired]

While 160 000 lightyears is a lot it is still pretty much right next to Milky Way. Our own galaxy is about 90 000 ly across. It's might actually be easier to picture it there than in other side of our own galaxy because of less dust etc. in the way. Maybe.

[@jackhydrazine1376]

Stephenson 2-18 (aka Stephenson 2 DFK 1) is even larger at 2,150 solar radius. It is a red supergiant, but it borders on the size of a red hypergiant.

[@DxG-51]

New estimates show that Stephenson 2-18 is around 1000 solar radius smaller than expected before :)

[@scuti2]

That estimate is extremely inaccurate and there are no other “good” estimates.

[@GoranG-v9r]

WOH Dude, that's gnarly...!

[@oceanside2152]

All the great astronomers and the biggest stars, Are in Western Ohio (WOH) I'm a serious ATM (Amateur Telescope Maker) who has built several large Observatory class telescopes, and I'm an actual expert on Space. My head is completely full of it .

[@philochristos]

You make a lot of sense.

[@Zeuskabob1]

2:20 I was very confused for a second, because your statement "A red giant star; a star that one day is going to contract and then go supernova". WOH G64 is a red supergiant, not a red giant. The difference between the two is whether they will go supernova or not (from what I understand). Red giants won't end with supernovae, just regular novae.

[@stargazer5784]

A lone red giant of relatively low mass, similar to that of our sun, won't go nova at all. It will just become a white dwarf at the end of it's life cycle. The term red giant is frequently used in a rather generic fashion because the physical parameters of these monsters varies so widely and we sometimes can't be sure of what they actually are. The same holds true for OB giants or supergiants.

[@UnicronCharieee]

Thanks🎉

[@thelazy0ne]

7:54 ... 😏 I know man, there's only 7 million humans on Earth and still not enough room for the ones with a magnitude problem....

[@DirtyLilHobo]

If only we had the technology to realize the Starship Enterprise. Suns, planets, and other celestial objects are many light-years distant. We can discover the largest sun, the Earth similar planets, and other interesting objects, but we will never reach them due to the massive distances!

[@ZiGGi03]

If a star looses a Jupiter a year in the last 30 years that’s a huge amount of matter accumulating around the star

[@guytech7310]

Its losing mass into space Note the large halo, but that was likely from a super flare. Lot of material leaves since the star is so large in diameter & very hot.

[@JustinMShaw]

Enough to make beautiful nebulae several light years across after they're done spewing it out.

[@seantiz]

What da math? Exciting. Thanks again for the great video.

[@Andrew-ix6rb]

Thank you for going to the effort to use 2160p 60

[@LordAugastus]

What erks me is, we are aware of gravitational background. Light curves, and can be slower going through mediums. Doppler effect isn't constant. So... How are we sure about size estimates....?

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

Stellar astrophysicists have a variety of methodologies for doing this. The LMC is 165,000 l.y. away and they know the spectra and luminosity of the star. Plug these numbers into well tested formulae and they have an estimate. They also look at data from other stars of this spectral type and luminosity class. If you were to watch an astrophysicist show university students exactky how this is done the mathematics alone would be intimidating ...

[@LordAugastus]

@douglaswilkinson5700 yeah like I said all theoretical conjecture that gets updated everytime we grow past our antiquated understanding. So the answer is till, we can't be sure, but it's the best guess we have 😂

[@stargazer5784]

​@@LordAugastus It's not theoretical conjecture at all, and your cynicism is totally unfounded. An entire generation of extremely brilliant physicists, in the early 20th century, knew that hydrogen fusion was the only possible explanation for the energy output seen in stars, and the development of the H-bomb was the first well known example of that knowledge being put to the test. Given what is revealed about the composition of stars through spectral analysis, a tool that's PROVEN to be accurate, we know that hydrogen fusion, and the fusion of still heavier elements produced through stellar nucleosynthesis, are what drives the energy production and evolution of stars. There can be no other explanation. Get over it. You are speculating, in a very disrespectful fashion I might add, about things that are beyond your current level of understanding. However, it's never too late to learn something, if you really want to.

[@JustinMShaw]

@@LordAugastus Scientists are very specific about exactly what they can and can't confirm, as well as their margins of error. It can be pretty boring reading, but you can find out exactly to what extent it's this guess that you claim.

[@stargazer5784]

Concerning your original question about size estimates, there's ALOT about observational astronomy that you know nothing about, and there's no shame in that. I'm not here to start teaching a basic astronomy class, nor is Anton. This isn't the place for it, and Anton assumes that you have at least some prerequisite knowledge of the subject. In short, if we know the distance, temperature, and luminosity of a star, we can place constraints on it's size. If something comes up that you're unfamiliar with, pause the video and look it up, such as with how stellar distances and sizes are measured. There's lots of free stuff to read out there, and some of it's written for the layman.

[@Woh64iambig]

Largest star list top 10 10: Mu Cephei A: 1200x sun 9: NML cigni: 1189-1310x sun 8: Ah Scoopii: 1411x sun 7: Vy Canis Majoris: 1420x sun 6: BI Cigni: 1528x sun 5: Westerlund 1-26: 1530x sun 4: Woh g64: 1540x sun 3: R211: 1575x sun 2: HV-888: 1470-1588x sun 1: Unknown Star Dont know

[@BuckRogers2000]

I surmise that WOH G64 will only last only until we find better detection techniques.

[@Slayer-3666]

I was just wondering this . Awesome 👏🏻

[@TechnologyHive]

Quick question...what if stars do not explode or implode or reach "super nova"? I mean, we have never seen a star do any of these things. If it has never been observed, we can't call it scientific. It is pure speculation. Predictions made 100 years ago are being questioned today by new theories and scientific findings, such as those findings by the JWT.

[@jonhenke1504]

I've been reading that Stevenson 2 - 18 was the biggest star after UY scooty? So now this is the new biggest star??

[@osmosisjones4912]

How do stars get big if they burn more material away once's they start fusion. Maybe already formed they colide then some stars should have multiple cores

[@MJ-revered]

Because heat makes molecules expand.

[@JustinMShaw]

They don't gain mass, in fact they continually lose it throughout their lives. But they lose it to solar wind much more than to fusion. As stated it's due to heat. When their cores start to develop multiple layers of fusion, getting hotter the deeper they are, the stars puff up.

[@CarlDi3trich]

Has the JWST taken a peek?

[@yousaidthusly461]

WOH G64 is also what they said when they discovered it: “Woah Gee a whole 64 pixels on the telescope!?”

[@hubbabubbahullabaloo3576]

Anton I ate way too much pasta at once, please help

[@lasarith2]

Anton you really should mention this is biggest in regards to Radius , not by Mass .

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

Yes. By mass the star bi253 (O2V) in the LMC has almost 100 solar masses, 1,175,000 its luminosity but only 13.9 times its radius. And since it is fusing hydrogen its also a "dwarf" star.

[@JustinMShaw]

Supergiants are never the highest mass. The most massive stars are also the ones that eject matter the fastest through solar winds. So the most massive ones are the ones that just formed, or just merged with another. But agreed it should be clarified. I've seen people get very confused about this before.

[@PiedFifer]

5:15 lost mass? what about gained mass? What about the comets and gigantic gas clouds, planets falling into a star?

[@CasualCatOfficial]

Ok so we have: Betelgeuse VY Canis Majoris UY Scuti Stephenson 2-18 And now wr have WOH G64, how have i not heard of that star yet…

[@sockenpuppe1057]

stars are nice ... But Thing "TON 618" scares me

[@sinass-s4g]

Then google 'phoenix-A black hole'..

[@sockenpuppe1057]

@@sinass-s4g i was hoping some one mention that cause i reallllly dint want to

[@JustinMShaw]

@@sockenpuppe1057 Last I heard, though, those scary things might have played a vital role in the creation of galaxies around themselves. Like their smaller local counterparts could be part of the reason we exist.

[@Tronddenstore]

The first time researchers have been able to take an actual physical image of a star in a completely different galaxy 160000 light years away from us? The nearest galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy at a distance of approximately 0.78 million parsecs (2.5 million light years). Our galaxy is 150000 light years across so...

[@davejones7632]

The LMC is a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. If you lived in the southern hemisphere you would see it regularly. Along with the SMC.

[@ClausHenning-qc2it]

To me it looks like an accretion disk seen from the side.

[@spacelemur7955]

About 150,000 LY away, and we refer to it's probably going supernova "in the next 100 years." Human language didn't evolve to deal with such weirdness.

[@joshua3171]

something to do with size and spin???

[@MichaelHovan]

Thank you : )

[@kingbuusaki7130]

Maybe a star is forming from the emissions

[@TheRealRayMillsToo]

Is there a chance that it’s just at a bizarre angle that makes it look like it’s egg shaped but isn’t?

[@rv706]

"Betelgeuse" is NOT pronounced "beetle juice"!!

[@nascenticity]

not with that attitude it isn’t

[@БаалМолох]

Does it have some oil?