# How accurate is this image? (cosmic content) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 17, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446 "2009-04-17T17:42:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dogfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@dogfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dogfood)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/1 "2009-04-17T17:42:55Z")
This image is fun to look at, but considering the source (jj.am) I am real curious how accurate it is. [enormous picture, 1280 x 8149 pixels](http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6254/353424.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/2 "2009-04-17T17:51:58Z")
Without digging up a list of facts. Looks pretty spot on to me. The only thing that pings my radar is the size of the eta carinia nebula. I woulda guessed its bigger than that. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/3 "2009-04-17T19:13:48Z")
That’s the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, and, [from what I understand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field), the image is pretty accurate in its description. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/4 "2009-04-17T21:11:58Z")
It calls both VV Cephai and VY Canis Majoris the largest stars known, so it must be wrong at least once. Still, that is a very humbling image–I had no idea stars could get that large. ---
**Author:** ![dogfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@dogfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dogfood)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/5 "2009-04-17T21:20:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > It calls both VV Cephai and VY Canis Majoris the largest stars known, so it must be wrong at least once. Still, that is a very humbling image–I had no idea stars could get that large. That is what I noticed that made me wonder about the rest. Then I saw this: “The large galaxy pictured here contains 8 times as many stars as our Milky Way Galaxy. It is so large, it technically shouldn’t exist according to current physics theories.” It seems like an iffy statement. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/6 "2009-04-17T21:53:57Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > It calls both VV Cephai and VY Canis Majoris the largest stars known, so it must be wrong at least once. Still, that is a very humbling image–I had no idea stars could get that large. Yeah, its not perfectly correct, but offhand I’d say most of it is right enough for what its trying to do, showing how damn big things are. And IIRC, the outer layers of the REALLY big stars are so “undense” that you could actually describe them as a “vacuum”. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-accurate-is-this-image-cosmic-content/493446/7 "2009-04-18T06:12:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > It calls both VV Cephai and VY Canis Majoris the largest stars known, so it must be wrong at least once. Still, that is a very humbling image–I had no idea stars could get that large. Well, they’re both contenders. There’s controversy as to the luminosity and distance of VY Canis Majoris, which in turn leads to questions about its size. VV Cephei is distorted by its binary partner, and its diameter is subject to interpretation. WOH G64 might be bigger than both. And that little guy called the Pistol Star, in frame 19? That’s the most massive star in the known Universe, 200 solar masses, 5 or 6 times the mass of VY Canis Majoris – but it’s tiny. And that’s nothing compared to the supermassive black holes - millions of solar masses.