2007-02-05 05:17:41 · 5 answers · asked by Gary D 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yes, I certainly acknowledge that brightness and "bigness" are two different measures. I'm just trying to find the largest one that would not be difficult to point out to someone without a telescope.
2007-02-05 05:51:52 · update #1
Mu Cephei has a radius of about 1,420 times Sol, and apparent magnitude +4.04.
Betelgeuse has a radius of about 650 times Sol, and apparent magnitude of +0.3 to +1.2. So it's brighter, but Mu cephei is bigger.
2007-02-05 05:36:04 · answer #1 · answered by morningfoxnorth 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Betelgeuse is a great choice to point out to someone without a telescope, for 3 reasons:
1. Its easy to find in Orion (which a lot of people know even without any astronomical training)
2. Its one of the few obviously red stars, which is unique and makes it something special
3. While perhaps not the brightest star in the sky, its still quite bright and fairly easy to see
Thought - show them Sirius as well (not that far from Betelgeuse and usually up around the same time) to contrast the brightness and colour between the 2.
2007-02-05 14:01:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most likely not. There are stars much bigger (see list) but they tend to be further and thus not as luminous, but some are still visible with the naked eye. Antares, for one, is bigger than Betelgeuse, and definitely visible with the naked eye.
2007-02-05 05:43:03 · answer #3 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia says Antares is a little bigger, more massive and intrinsically brighter. And there are a number of less obvious stars that are even bigger.
2007-02-05 05:55:16 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See above answers. Brightest does not mean biggest.
2007-02-05 05:47:45 · answer #5 · answered by Jerry P 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋