Is there anything to manage space?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bearack

Guest
<p>I was curious, is there anything stopping a sun/star's growth.&nbsp; What I mean (and not even I know what I mean) is there a delimiter out there that dictates how large a star can grow.&nbsp; Is it a possibility of there being a star out there with a billion times more mass than say a Jupiter?</p><p>Curious minds want to know </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-sealed.gif" border="0" alt="Sealed" title="Sealed" /></p><p>Sorry if this is an over simplified question.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p>I don't think astronomers really know the answer to that one. And that is a good question BTW. I suspect they have mathematical data that would give them a ball park answer. Hopefully MeteorWayne or 3488 will come along. They are both professional astronomers and can probably answer this better than I can.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
R

Ricardo_Savino

Guest
<p>In fact, as far as I know, there isn&acute;t! Stars can gorw large, very large, but it depends on 0many factors as density and volume.</p><p>Large&nbsp;stars&nbsp;as&nbsp;LY&nbsp;Canis&nbsp;Major&nbsp;(if&nbsp;it&nbsp;puts&nbsp;in&nbsp;our&nbsp;sun&acute;s&nbsp;place&nbsp;it&nbsp;will&nbsp;reach&nbsp;saturn&nbsp;orbit)&nbsp;are&nbsp;incredibly&nbsp;huge,&nbsp;but&nbsp;it&acute;s&nbsp;not&nbsp;that&nbsp;massive&nbsp;as&nbsp;other&nbsp;stars.&nbsp;Size&nbsp;and&nbsp;mass&nbsp;are&nbsp;not&nbsp;directly&nbsp;related&nbsp;when&nbsp;we&nbsp;talk&nbsp;about&nbsp;stars.</p><p>Massive&nbsp;stars,&nbsp;real&nbsp;massive&nbsp;stars&nbsp;will&nbsp;last&nbsp;only&nbsp;a&nbsp;few&nbsp;million&nbsp;years,&nbsp;with&nbsp;a&nbsp;high&nbsp;density&nbsp;and&nbsp;not&nbsp;so&nbsp;bigger&nbsp;than&nbsp;our&nbsp;sun.</p><p>It&acute;s&nbsp;a&nbsp;confuse&nbsp;stuff,&nbsp;I&nbsp;know!&nbsp;I&acute;m&nbsp;not&nbsp;expert&nbsp;and&nbsp;I&nbsp;probably&nbsp;talking&nbsp;a&nbsp;lot&nbsp;of&nbsp;bullshit,&nbsp;but,&nbsp;as&nbsp;I&nbsp;said,&nbsp;as&nbsp;far&nbsp;as&nbsp;I&nbsp;know&nbsp;theres&nbsp;no&nbsp;real&nbsp;limit&nbsp;for&nbsp;a&nbsp;star&nbsp;grow!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#ff0000"><font size="3">Look up and feel small!</font></font></strong> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was curious, is there anything stopping a sun/star's growth.&nbsp; What I mean (and not even I know what I mean) is there a delimiter out there that dictates how large a star can grow.&nbsp; Is it a possibility of there being a star out there with a billion times more mass than say a Jupiter?Curious minds want to know Sorry if this is an over simplified question. <br />Posted by bearack</DIV><br /><br />I beleive the largest star (most massive) seen to date is about 110 solar masses.&nbsp; A star should not be able to exceed 150 solar masses.&nbsp; At this size the radiation pressure would overcome gravitation and the star would be unstable.&nbsp; </p><p>There is no such size limit on a black hole of course, they can be a billion solar masses or more.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact, as far as I know, there isn&acute;t! Stars can gorw large, very large, but it depends on 0many factors as density and volume.Large&nbsp;stars&nbsp;as&nbsp;LY&nbsp;Canis&nbsp;Major&nbsp;(if&nbsp;it&nbsp;puts&nbsp;in&nbsp;our&nbsp;sun&acute;s&nbsp;place&nbsp;it&nbsp;will&nbsp;reach&nbsp;saturn&nbsp;orbit)&nbsp;are&nbsp;incredibly&nbsp;huge,&nbsp;but&nbsp;it&acute;s&nbsp;not&nbsp;that&nbsp;massive&nbsp;as&nbsp;other&nbsp;stars.&nbsp;Size&nbsp;and&nbsp;mass&nbsp;are&nbsp;not&nbsp;directly&nbsp;related&nbsp;when&nbsp;we&nbsp;talk&nbsp;about&nbsp;stars.Massive&nbsp;stars,&nbsp;real&nbsp;massive&nbsp;stars&nbsp;will&nbsp;last&nbsp;only&nbsp;a&nbsp;few&nbsp;million&nbsp;years,&nbsp;with&nbsp;a&nbsp;high&nbsp;density&nbsp;and&nbsp;not&nbsp;so&nbsp;bigger&nbsp;than&nbsp;our&nbsp;sun.It&acute;s&nbsp;a&nbsp;confuse&nbsp;stuff,&nbsp;I&nbsp;know!&nbsp;I&acute;m&nbsp;not&nbsp;expert&nbsp;and&nbsp;I&nbsp;probably&nbsp;talking&nbsp;a&nbsp;lot&nbsp;of&nbsp;bullshit,&nbsp;but,&nbsp;as&nbsp;I&nbsp;said,&nbsp;as&nbsp;far&nbsp;as&nbsp;I&nbsp;know&nbsp;theres&nbsp;no&nbsp;real&nbsp;limit&nbsp;for&nbsp;a&nbsp;star&nbsp;grow!&nbsp; <br />Posted by Ricardo_Savino</DIV></p><p>First, richard, whatever means you use to reply is&nbsp;very hard to read. It comes through on my IE7 as very long sentences that I have to scroll to read. Your original posts don't do that, but your replies do. Just a comment.</p><p>To get to the question at hand, star size is limited by the mass in the gas/dust cloud, and then a delicate interplay between gravity drawing material in, and heating that occurs from the gravitational collapse. Exactly what gas or dust is included makes a diffence as well, since it affects the dissapation of the heat.</p><p>Heat causes (actually is) faster molecular motion which expands the cloud, while gravity contracts the cloud. It's rather like a functioning fusioning star. It's a balance between gravity and heat, only far more delicate from what we understand now.</p><p>It is suspected (though an area of active research) that the earliest stars, consisting of only hydrogen and helium could grow much larger; once metals (anything heavier than helium) are mixed in the heating limits how much mass can be absorbed before it is blown away. Since "in the beginning" there was only H, He, and a bit of Li, that describes the first stars. After those massive (short lived) stars exploded, the pollution that allows planets and humans was distributed through space and used in the next round of star making. Smaller stars, and other stuff, like us..<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>And of course, once fusion starts, whatever gas/dust is in the cloud stops falling in, and hence is available to form planets, asteroids, and the other rubble of stellar systems</p><p>That's my inderstanding anyway; I'm not an expert in stellar evolution, but I am a reading addict....<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
R

Ricardo_Savino

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, richard, whatever means you use to reply is&nbsp;very hard to read. It comes through on my IE7 as very long sentences that I have to scroll to read. Your original posts don't do that, but your replies do. Just a comment. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Hmm,&nbsp;I&nbsp;see.&nbsp;I&nbsp;have&nbsp;this&nbsp;problem&nbsp;here&nbsp;too,&nbsp;but&nbsp;not&nbsp;with&nbsp;my&nbsp;post!</p><p>Yours,&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;way,&nbsp;I&nbsp;need&nbsp;to&nbsp;scroll&nbsp;to&nbsp;read&nbsp;all&nbsp;too!</p><p>I&nbsp;guess&nbsp;it&acute;s&nbsp;an&nbsp;Opera&nbsp;problem&nbsp;(I&nbsp;use&nbsp;it),&nbsp;and&nbsp;I&nbsp;have&nbsp;lots&nbsp;of&nbsp;problem&nbsp;to&nbsp;log&nbsp;here&nbsp;too!&nbsp;I&nbsp;don&acute;t&nbsp;like&nbsp;IE&nbsp;but&nbsp;it&nbsp;seems&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;necessary&nbsp;here!&nbsp;:(</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I&acute;ll&nbsp;see&nbsp;wht&nbsp;I&nbsp;can&nbsp;do!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;advice!!!:)&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#ff0000"><font size="3">Look up and feel small!</font></font></strong> </div>
 
B

bearack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hmm,&nbsp;I&nbsp;see.&nbsp;I&nbsp;have&nbsp;this&nbsp;problem&nbsp;here&nbsp;too,&nbsp;but&nbsp;not&nbsp;with&nbsp;my&nbsp;post!Yours,&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;way,&nbsp;I&nbsp;need&nbsp;to&nbsp;scroll&nbsp;to&nbsp;read&nbsp;all&nbsp;too!I&nbsp;guess&nbsp;it&acute;s&nbsp;an&nbsp;Opera&nbsp;problem&nbsp;(I&nbsp;use&nbsp;it),&nbsp;and&nbsp;I&nbsp;have&nbsp;lots&nbsp;of&nbsp;problem&nbsp;to&nbsp;log&nbsp;here&nbsp;too!&nbsp;I&nbsp;don&acute;t&nbsp;like&nbsp;IE&nbsp;but&nbsp;it&nbsp;seems&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;necessary&nbsp;here!&nbsp;:(&nbsp;I&acute;ll&nbsp;see&nbsp;wht&nbsp;I&nbsp;can&nbsp;do!&nbsp;Thanks&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;advice!!!:)&nbsp; <br />Posted by Ricardo_Savino</DIV><br /><br />It's when anyone replies to your post that this occurs.&nbsp; strange, indeed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>I'm reposting my reply hopefully in a more readbale form :)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>First, richard, whatever means you use to reply is&nbsp;very hard to read. It comes through on my IE7 as very long sentences that I have to scroll to read. Your original posts don't do that, but your replies do. Just a comment.</p><p>To get to the question at hand, star size is limited by the mass in the gas/dust cloud, and then a delicate interplay between gravity drawing material in, and heating that occurs from the gravitational collapse. Exactly what gas or dust is included makes a diffence as well, since it affects the dissapation of the heat.</p><p>Heat causes (actually is) faster molecular motion which expands the cloud, while gravity contracts the cloud. It's rather like a functioning fusioning star. It's a balance between gravity and heat, only far more delicate from what we understand now.</p><p>It is suspected (though an area of active research) that the earliest stars, consisting of only hydrogen and helium could grow much larger; once metals (anything heavier than helium) are mixed in the heating limits how much mass can be absorbed before it is blown away. Since "in the beginning" there was only H, He, and a bit of Li, that describes the first stars. After those massive (short lived) stars exploded, the pollution that allows planets and humans was distributed through space and used in the next round of star making. Smaller stars, and other stuff, like us..<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>And of course, once fusion starts, whatever gas/dust is in the cloud stops falling in, and hence is available to form planets, asteroids, and the other rubble of stellar systems</p><p>That's my inderstanding anyway; I'm not an expert in stellar evolution, but I am a reading addict....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>There is no definitive answer yet. &nbsp;Some theories place the limit as high as 1000 solar masses, but observations place the limit at about 150 solar masses and thus that is the general consensus. &nbsp;Though, higher limits have not been rules out. &nbsp;Theories are currently being worked on to determine what the actual limiting factor is.</p><p>From what I gather, massive proto stars undergo a rapid gravitational collapse due to the massive amounts of available matter. &nbsp;This, in turn, &nbsp;creates a core hot enough to begin the fusion process before the rest of the gas cloud gets overwhelmed with radiation pressure. &nbsp;My guess is there is a balance between the speed of the core creation beginning the fusion process and the amount of matter.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I mean (and not even I know what I mean) is there a delimiter out there that dictates how large a star can grow.&nbsp; Posted by bearack</DIV><br /><br />You have raised a very interesting question which I have lately been asking myself also.&nbsp; This is also the only argument that goes against formation of black holes.&nbsp; My instinct tells me there must be a limit on the mass/size of a star by some still unknown laws of nature which prohibits stars from becoming theoretical black holes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have raised a very interesting question which I have lately been asking myself also.&nbsp; This is also the only argument that goes against formation of black holes.&nbsp; My instinct tells me there must be a limit on the mass/size of a star by some still unknown laws of nature which prohibits stars from becoming theoretical black holes.&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br />I don't understand. Sure stars do not immediately collapse into black holes because the heat of fusion balances gravity until fusion ceases. But after the candle goes out, they do collapse into black holes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have raised a very interesting question which I have lately been asking myself also.&nbsp; This is also the only argument that goes against formation of black holes.&nbsp; My instinct tells me there must be a limit on the mass/size of a star by some still unknown laws of nature which prohibits stars from becoming theoretical black holes.&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br /><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1">A star should not be able to exceed 150 solar masses.&nbsp; At this size the radiation pressure would overcome gravitation and the star would be unstable.</font>&nbsp;</span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1">The largest star observed to date is about 110 solar masses.</font></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1">A star that exceeds 20 solar masses will end it's life as a black hole.&nbsp; At this mass when the nuclear fuel is exhausted it's gravity will be so strong that once it begins to collapse there is no force that can stop it not even the pauli exclusion principal - in other words 2 or more particles&nbsp;will be able to&nbsp;occupy the same space. </font></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1">Why does your instinct tell you there must be a limit to prevent this?&nbsp; Is it because it is a black hole is too weird, cause if that's your problem, I think a black hole is mild compared to the quantum crap going all around you.</font></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

neuvik

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is suspected (though an area of active research) that the earliest stars, consisting of only hydrogen and helium could grow much larger; once metals (anything heavier than helium) are mixed in the heating limits how much mass can be absorbed before it is blown away. Since "in the beginning" there was only H, He, and a bit of Li, that describes the first stars. After those massive (short lived) stars exploded, the pollution that allows planets and humans was distributed through space and used in the next round of star making. Smaller stars, and other stuff, like us..<br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Does the expulsion of heavier elements from a coalescing star only occur in concert with the entire star exploding? &nbsp; Or do phenomena like solar flares and coronal mass ejections expel out the ever so valuable elements for building planets while still keeping the star intact? &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does the expulsion of heavier elements from a coalescing star only occur in concert with the entire star exploding? &nbsp; Or do phenomena like solar flares and coronal mass ejections expel out the ever so valuable elements for building planets while still keeping the star intact? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'm sure events such as CMEs can inject elements heavier than hyrdogen and helium into its stellar system, but not likely in any significant quantities and only if they are not 1st generation stars.&nbsp; Certainly not anything heavier than iron. Elements heavier than iron can only be created through a supernova.&nbsp; </p><p>Stars tend to create onion like layering when they go through the fusion sequence with the heavier elements at the core.&nbsp; With Silicon being the heaviest element to give off energy during fusion, (there might be others between the Silicon to the Nickle/Iron stage, but I don't remember them) the star will not have enough radiative pressure to hold back the gravity when the core becomes prodominately Iron.&nbsp; The resulting explosion heats up the remaining layers of the lighter elements providing sufficient energies to fuse elements heavier than iron and disperse them throughout the interstellar medium and 'seed' molecular clouds.&nbsp;</p><p>And the cycle continues creating 2nd and 3rd generations of stars with enough elements for rocky planets like us.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<p>The largest star ever detected is one designated "A1" in NGC 3603, which is 114 Solar Masses (and with a companion of 82 Solar Masses!).</p><p>And that's correct: above 150 Solar Mass, the Radiation Pressure makes the star dangerously unstable.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
B

bearack

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The largest star ever detected is one designated "A1" in NGC 3603, which is 114 Solar Masses (and with a companion of 82 Solar Masses!).And that's correct: above 150 Solar Mass, the Radiation Pressure makes the star dangerously unstable.&nbsp; <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV><br /><br />Thanks for all the input from everyone.&nbsp; Love the knowledge base here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A star that exceeds 20 solar masses will end it's life as a black hole.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Here is a news item that claims a&nbsp;blackhole of 1.7 solar mass is detected. If this&nbsp;trend continues, someday we may find our sun has a chance to become ablackhole.</p><p>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/01/astronomers-find-the-smallest-black-hole/</p><p>Then I can guess the blackhole theory has not been perfected yet.</p><p>&nbsp;All I wanted to say is there must be an upper limit&nbsp;on mass/size and no celestial object&nbsp;&nbsp;can exceed that limit. A 'limit' seems to be the laws of nature. But the news I read&nbsp; gives me an impression 'there is no limit'. Astronomers are discovering blackholes of million to billion solar masses every other day. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is a news item that claims a&nbsp;blackhole of 1.7 solar mass is detected. If this&nbsp;trend continues, someday we may find our sun has a chance to become ablackhole.http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/01/astronomers-find-the-smallest-black-hole/Then I can guess the blackhole theory has not been perfected yet.&nbsp;All I wanted to say is there must be an upper limit&nbsp;on mass/size and no celestial object&nbsp;&nbsp;can exceed that limit. A 'limit' seems to be the laws of nature. But the news I read&nbsp; gives me an impression 'there is no limit'. Astronomers are discovering blackholes of million to billion solar masses every other day. &nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br />Yeah, that's a little different, though. The poster was asking about stars, which due to the physics of contraction, cooling, and fusion, probably do have some kind of a soft limit in size.</p><p>The galactic center black holes are formed from the assimilation of many millions of stars, so grow by a different process that a stellar sized one.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is a news item that claims a&nbsp;blackhole of 1.7 solar mass is detected. If this&nbsp;trend continues, someday we may find our sun has a chance to become ablackhole.http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/01/astronomers-find-the-smallest-black-hole/Then I can guess the blackhole theory has not been perfected yet.&nbsp;All I wanted to say is there must be an upper limit&nbsp;on mass/size and no celestial object&nbsp;&nbsp;can exceed that limit. A 'limit' seems to be the laws of nature. But the news I read&nbsp; gives me an impression 'there is no limit'. Astronomers are discovering blackholes of million to billion solar masses every other day.&nbsp; Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That article does not claim a black hole of 1.7 solar masses.&nbsp; That is the speculation on the lowest limit.&nbsp; The black hole you are speaking of is 3.8 solar masses.&nbsp; When speaking of a black hole of 3.8 solar masses, that is the mass of the remaining collapsed core after the supernova event.&nbsp; The reference to a star requiring ~20 solar masses is the mass of the star before it has shed its outer layers leaving a core remnant behind.&nbsp; It's this core remnant that requires specific amounts of mass to become either a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole.&nbsp; You need about 20 solar masses&nbsp; in the original star to create a core with a large enough mass to collapse completely into a black hole (this is a very loose number... no one can claim to know the exact mass of the original star). </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY