<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Most Massive Star to Date has been Discovered</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tracyleesmith.com/blog/2007/06/08/a-big-big-star-has-been-discovered/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tracyleesmith.com/blog/2007/06/08/a-big-big-star-has-been-discovered/</link>
	<description>Once more unto the breach...</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: thumanic</title>
		<link>http://tracyleesmith.com/blog/2007/06/08/a-big-big-star-has-been-discovered/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>thumanic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tracyleesmith.net/blog/2007/06/08/a-big-big-star-has-been-discovered/#comment-19</guid>
		<description>So it would be interesting to know what the Eddington limit is in terms of solar masses, i.e. how far above the limit are these supermassive stars of 84 and 114 solar masses? Does this change the models for star formation drastically?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So it would be interesting to know what the Eddington limit is in terms of solar masses, i.e. how far above the limit are these supermassive stars of 84 and 114 solar masses? Does this change the models for star formation drastically?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.293 seconds -->
