EPTWe will get a second sun - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Inside.Out
Canada569 Posts
| ||
Spazer
Canada8033 Posts
On January 21 2011 19:40 craz3d wrote: Well I don't know what other type of observations there could be. I presume that observations are made using a telescope. What we see through a telescope is light. So yea, at the moment that you wrote that post, it may have gone supernova already. When this information will reach Earth, that's hard to say. Most deep space observation is done using some sort of radio telescope. Stars emit a lot of radiation, and most of this isn't in the range of visible light. You can infer a lot of data from the type and intensity of radiation that comes from a star. That said, the speed of light is essentially the universe's speed limit, so it's not like these other types of EMR are reaching us any faster than visible light would. | ||
|
Runsta
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
BajaBlood
United States205 Posts
The moon never gets brighter than -13 and the Sun is at -26.7 (roughly 400,000 times as bright). So every night might be as bright as a full moon, and the moon might make it brighter still. But you'll still be getting 200,000 times less light than during the day - hardly enough to call it a day without end. | ||
|
ChaseR
Norway1004 Posts
| ||
|
XsebT
Denmark2980 Posts
I'm just hoping it's gonna blow up within my life time.. Would love to see a supernova with my own eyes.  Aren't supernovas quite frequent within single galaxies though? - Even though they're not all visible to us. | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5929 Posts
| ||
|
Mannequin
Canada131 Posts
On January 21 2011 17:59 Empyrean wrote: Sorry, I meant any star except for our sun. EDIT: Don't be a douchebag. Jesus christ, its like the fucking talking wikipedia over here. If you get proven wrong, does your head collapse on itself? User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On January 22 2011 00:29 Mannequin wrote: Jesus christ, its like the fucking talking wikipedia over here. If you get proven wrong, does your head collapse on itself? I'm not quite sure if you're trying to offend him, or if this is some kind of compliment, but either way, there shouldn't have to be a need for "talking wikipedias" like him if people were at least a little bit educated and knew a little something about the universe they actually live in. It's quite funny that (probably) 99.5% of people imagine black holes as being giant space vacuum cleaners. | ||
|
glassmazarin
Sweden158 Posts
On January 21 2011 18:58 Roblin wrote: I believe he meant other than the sun, and just for the sake of speculation, im gonna do some math on how light intensive a star would be if it was as luminous as R136a1, the most luminuos star we know of (I didnt search much, could be wrong) with an absolute magnitude of -12.5, for those that wont bother checking up what that means, its ≈100.000.000.000.000.000 (a hundred million billion!) times more luminous as the sun, and lets check how much it would affect the tempreture on earth (compared to the sun) if it was on the same distance as our closest star (other than the sun) which is 4.2 light years luminosity dissipates at a rate of the distance squared (or 1/(distance^2)), for example, if you have a flash light and put it on distance x from a flat surface, it will shed its light on a certain area, lets define this as a. if you put it on distance 2*x, then the light will spread twice as far in both "height" and "width", meaning it will illuminate an area that is a^2, meaning that every cm^2 is illuminated by less light, see the logic? we have a very nifty little measure of length, its called astronomical units, and its the distance from the sun to the earth, nice for moments like this eh? one light year is 63240 astronomical units (picture that in your mind, our closest star is 63240 * 4.2 = 265608 times farther away from us as the sun, and the sun is plenty far away already) so if the amount of light (or photons or heat if you will) that we receive today from the sun is L (as in light) then that theoretical star would give us ((10^17L)/(265608)^2) or rounded ≈1417482 so when we have some facts on the table, if you were to put the strongest star in our known universe, and put it were our closest star is, then yes, our temperature would increase quite a bit, by a few thousand degrees as a matter of fact. but when we look at actual reality, the brightest star on the nightsky is Sirius, in the lion, which is ≈(1 / 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000) (one ten-million-billion-billionth!) of the suns appearent magnitude, it seems extremely unlikely that any star will ever affect our temperature in any significant way other than the sun during the closest 100 generations or so. I think some values here are incorrect.. I believe the highest luminosity of a star is roughly 10^6 times the luminosity of the sun. Thus, since flux scales as 1/r^2, such a star at a distance of 1000 times the sun would heat our planet as much as the sun does. | ||
|
Ayush_SCtoss
India3050 Posts
| ||
|
SirazTV
United States209 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On January 22 2011 00:29 Mannequin wrote: Jesus christ, its like the fucking talking wikipedia over here. If you get proven wrong, does your head collapse on itself? lol? Certain things you don't have to explicitly state if they are commonly understood. Like the fact that our sun is a star. Why are you trying to be a douche again? | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4216 Posts
On January 22 2011 01:45 Bleak wrote: Guess we'll know how it feels like to be on Tatooine. You're looking towards a very bleak future..... | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
There may also be no night during that timeframe That would be pretty sick to have but it may effect a lot of animals and agriculture. | ||
rotinegg
United States1719 Posts
edit:: that was my astronomy professor from high school, and I am now a senior in college... it's been 5 years since he said that and Betelguse hasn't exploded yet so I have my reasons to believe that this has but the slightest chance of happening anytime soon. If you guys wanna see Betelguse, look up the Orion constellation and find it in the night sky (his belt should be an easy guide to finding him) and look at the top left star. You can notice with your naked eye that it is alot redder than other stars in the sky | ||
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
On January 22 2011 01:55 rotinegg wrote: so my astronomy professor said that Betelgeuse is indeed very close to collapsing and creating a supernova... but a star's life spans across billions of years, and that "very close to collapsing" is a very relative term. This means it could happen anytime during the next thousand years, and we have no way of getting it down any more precisely edit:: that was my astronomy professor from high school, and I am now a senior in college... it's been 5 years since he said that and Betelguse hasn't exploded yet so I have my reasons to believe that this has but the slightest chance of happening anytime soon. If you guys wanna see Betelguse, look up the Orion constellation (his belt should be an easy guide to finding him) and look at the top left star, and you can notice with your naked eye that it is alot redder than other stars in the sky It's more or less random, isn't it? At least that's all I can recall from statistical mechanics. | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
that should have actually have acourred right now... we just waitig for the light?? | ||
| ||
