Supernova about to give Earth a second sun., page 17
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 127 times


reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 09:27 AM by 00nunya00
Originally posted by TWILITE22
Originally posted by Droogie
I can imagine standing outside in the dark of night when this happens, man what a sight to see. All the secrets of the shadows suddenly revealed before ones eyes, undoubtedly a pretty cool thing to experience for a puny human.
edit on 22/1/11 by Droogie because: (no reason given)
Can we appoint you as our night watchman for all of us at ATS?And let us know when it starts happening??.


No need----sign up for SNEWS alerts and you will get probably a few hours' advanced notice of it! It's a really cool program, looking for the advance neutrino waves that come faster than the photon wave because the light gets slowed down while the neutrinos do not! We got advanced warning of SN1987A, about 3 hours, and got to watch it "real time" (as in while it happened, and not from video afterwards).
edit on 23-1-2011 by 00nunya00 because: too short



reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 09:45 AM by Cosmic4life
reply to post by 00nunya00


I'm getting really tired of the patronizing tone of your replies.

1. It was you who mentioned BRIGHTNESS, when i stated BG was 9th largest star, as if correcting me.!! lol.
2. I notice you are no longer arguing the point of BG being the 9th/10th LARGEST star.
3.You speak as though the critical mass for Hypernova is known..it is not.!!

As you were wrong on points 1 and 2 and have not corrected your errors, it would seem your knowledge and expertise is clearly dubious.

If you want a debate about it write a thread stating exactly what the mass threshold is.



reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 10:09 AM by 00nunya00
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by 00nunya00


I'm getting really tired of the patronizing tone of your replies.

1. It was you who mentioned BRIGHTNESS, when i stated BG was 9th largest star, as if correcting me.!! lol.
2. I notice you are no longer arguing the point of BG being the 9th/10th LARGEST star.
3.You speak as though the critical mass for Hypernova is known..it is not.!!

As you were wrong on points 1 and 2 and have not corrected your errors, it would seem your knowledge and expertise is clearly dubious.

If you want a debate about it write a thread stating exactly what the mass threshold is.



1)No, you stated it was the "9th biggest star in our galaxy" which is wrong.
2)"Large" and "Massive" are, again, two different things. BG is indeed one of the BIGGEST stars we can see, but indeed not anywhere NEAR the most MASSIVE, which are the hypergiants. I have never contradicted myself on this.
3)You speak as if the mass of a hypernova is a big guess, which it's not! There's a bare minimum required for the calculations to work out, and BG does not anywhere near qualify for these calculations.

If you want to debate about it, just get a few facts straight first, that's all I'm asking.


reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 11:34 AM by 00nunya00
reply to post by Jbird


You're right. Let me extend an olive branch and expound upon this size/mass issue:

One of the really interesting and cool things about BG is that it is SOOOO huge, but is really only about 18-19 times the *mass* of our sun. It's rather "airy" as they go, and even has some very weird and partially-explained gas plumes and dust shells around it, which may help us understand the nature of red giants altogether. We *believe* the poles are positioned at a safe axis for Earth, because of a "hot spot" that has been observed and is theorized to be caused by its axial rotation. True, though----this is just a good educated guess based on observations of other stars. Furthermore, we have been surprised by the size of other supernova explosions that don't seem to fit with our current calculations (I linked about one a page or two back). We could always be surprised by old Betelgeuse.

ETA: oh, and something really cool----one of those outer shells beyond the photosphere actually contains water molecules!
edit on 23-1-2011 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 11:40 AM by sephrenia
reply to post by 00nunya00


Thankyou so much for those links. The one from MIT seems to confirm that neutrinos do mutate which makes the 2012 movie seem more plausible and the Stanford link you posted only backs that up. I'll go look at the IAS link but I suspect that it's going to agree with the other two


reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 11:46 AM by randyvs
reply to post by TWILITE22


So right at the time we're supposed to start seeing two suns by way of Niburu, low and behold, how convienient,
we have betelgeuse. Wad-up? The only thing we need fear is fear itself !
edit on 23-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 23-1-2011 @ 11:47 AM by 00nunya00
reply to post by sephrenia


That one (the IAS one) is really out of date, but gives the whole history for the concept behind the SuperK project, which has within the last year made its first groundbreaking discovery on mutating neutrinos (read the latest news item on that page, it's the homepage for the project)


reply posted on 29-1-2011 @ 03:21 AM by Ryanssuperman
Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by Krusty the Klown


I don't understand how they can say it could happen within weeks or a few millions years... can they not measure the distance from the star to earth to know when the light will arrive? Or is it that they don't know how long the star will take to use up all its hydrogen?


It's already gone super nova. They are trying to calculate the time the light from the star will reach us. Its 600 light years away.
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17  >>    ^^TOP^^