"Most Massive stars ever"
Oprah, Rosie O' Donnell, Roseanne... oh wait, the topic is Astronomy, nevermind.
regarding the link though, In a strange twist, I actually find it entirely un-amazing... even dissappointing, in some ways. I haven't been heavily into Astronomy since I started working with computers (so I don't follow astronomical news like this) and the books I have are pretty ancient (let's just say they are the same age as a College book titled "applied Structured basic"... that is, late 70's or so)
Anyway, the book has a "artists rendering" of the size comparison between the sun and betelguese:
the picture is actually a two-page spread covering the lower half of both pages, but I sort of cut it out for size, which is actually the opposite of what I usually do with two-page spreads, which is to enlarge them.
Alright, so we have that... and now today they find the "most massive stars" and we get this picture:
One of those has got to be wrong! I want to blame the fact that the Betelgeuse one was based on incorrect data (it being way older and all), but there is actually a thermal graphing of the star's surface, so I have no idea what to think here.
