EPTWe will get a second sun - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
koslain
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
Kenderson
Canada280 Posts
On January 22 2011 03:40 goiflin wrote: Technically, since betelgeuse is estimated to be (650?) light years away, this would all be past tense. It would have had to already go supernova in 1362 for us to see it in 2012. I like this way of thinking. It's intriguing to think that we are looking into the past whenever we look into space. | ||
|
shaunnn
Ireland1230 Posts
Has an article on this topic | ||
|
BC.KoRn
Canada567 Posts
| ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
| ||
|
Simplistik
2134 Posts
On January 21 2011 17:19 Empyrean wrote: None. We're going to experience an increased neutrino flux which is going to have virtually no physical effect on Earth. And for any star to be able to affect global temperatures is an absolutely ridiculous notion. Well, except our star, eh? It does have a rather big impact on the temperatures here. | ||
|
PiousMartyr
Canada176 Posts
On January 22 2011 06:39 Simplistik wrote: Well, except our star, eh? It does have a rather big impact on the temperatures here. Keep reading, he corrected himself after someone else made a snarky comment. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
Betelgeuse is a gorgeous ruby in the sky, definitely one of my favorite, on par with Antares in its obvious coloration. When it explodes, it will be the astronomy event of the millennium. Sadly, these articles pop up about once a month. Betelgeuse COULD go supernova in our lifetime...or a few HUNDRED thousand years from now. I remember last year there was an article about the diameter of Betelgeuse changing (shrinking)...everybody thought it was going to go!....then nothing. Interesting fact, though. Betelgeuse is the only other star (besides our Sun) that we can directly image the surface of! Because of its distance combined with its size... | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 21 2011 17:20 MageSoren wrote: If Betelgeuse actually goes supernova, I'm more so concerned if it will create a gamma-ray burst and if it does create such an event, hopefully the burst isn't aimed directly towards us..... for some reason I rofled at this because we would just get shit on so bad if that happened hahaha it'd be like yamato-cannoning a bacteria cell on a zergling | ||
|
Dr. ROCKZO
New Zealand396 Posts
| ||
|
PiousMartyr
Canada176 Posts
On January 22 2011 06:12 Kenderson wrote: I like this way of thinking. It's intriguing to think that we are looking into the past whenever we look into space. When you think about it, everything you see and hear occured in the past. When you look at someone, you see them the way they were a teensy amount of time ago, not the way they are right now. Time becomes such a cool concept when you start to learn more about physics and relativity. It becomes so hard to pin down a true "now", because your "now" is different from mine. | ||
|
Munk-E
United States672 Posts
But this is pretty cool. Unfortunately, I'm guessing we won't see this in our lifetimes, all these cool things take forever, and we are speculating that betelgeuse "might" run out of fuel "soon" My guess is these people work for blizzard and it's going to be a few hundred years, which would be nothing on the astronomical scale. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
What this means is that when astrophysicists say something like: "betelgeuse will probably blow up soon relative to it's lifetime", they're actually making tons of assumptions about things which have no proven physical background (let's not talk about mathematical background, even theoretical physicists are notorious for sweeping mathematical technicalities under the rug  ). Most stuff (My gut strongly says "everything" but I'm not quite sure) in astronomy is of empirical nature, and given the way we gather empirical data in astronomy it's not that hard to figure out that these models are not that accurate and that they have to change around a lot.That doesn't mean that all of this is bogus of course. It's just that out of all things that have to do with physics, astronomy is by far the field which is the hardest to put research into. Simply because you can't just take a star and blow it up in an experiment. We can't even observe anything really well. Astronomers do the best they can with what they have. Most models which describe certain things today in astronomy are probably pretty good, but you should take anything that any astronomer says when it comes to actual numbers with a grain of salt. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13407 Posts
On a serious note, even if it did go supernova we wouldnt see the light for 600 more years. Or maybe it went supernova 600 years ago? Who knows all that matters is that this won't actually impact any of us at all and this 2012 business is kinda dumb if you ask me. | ||
|
Aquafresh
United States824 Posts
Is there really anything else that needs to be said? Multiple posters explained how the 2012 stuff was bullshit, and the updated OP is mostly accurate now. Nothing the Astronomer they quoted said was wrong. Beetleguse will go supernova relatively soon astronomically speaking, it will be quite a spectacle, (I don't think there has been a nearer to earth supernova in recorded history IIRC, or at least not one of this magnitude) and it will prove to be ultimately harmless toward life on earth. It is highly unlikely we will observe it in our lifetimes, but on a astronomical scale its life is pretty much over. | ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
Hopefully we'll still get to see it at some point in our lifetimes though. | ||
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
|
Th1rdEye
United States1074 Posts
| ||
| ||
