It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Betelgeuse, the suspected star to supernova, change color?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


No. We should see a temperature increase as it nears collapse.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


The part of your theory that is mistaken is the fact that you're assuming we get info on BG in "real-time" but do not see the light until it reaches here. All of the info we have on BG----everything we can see from it-----is as old as it is far away. What we're seeing from it, and hence all the info we have on it, is about 640 years old. We're possibly already looking at a dead star.

We won't know if it's dead until we get the light signature from this, and there's no way around that. When we argue about "it might go supernova soon" we mean "it might have gone supernova 640 years ago and we might just finally get around to seeing this soon."



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by Violater1
 


Then it can't be anything more than you scrutinizing BG differently than you have in the past. I think it's just your imagination.




This is my first thread on Betelgeuse, and I have not scrutinized it in the past. However, sense others have noticed the darker shift in orange, perhaps they too are imagining it as well. At least I'm not alone.

edit on 24-1-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


The part of your theory that is mistaken is the fact that you're assuming we get info on BG in "real-time" but do not see the light until it reaches here. All of the info we have on BG----everything we can see from it-----is as old as it is far away. What we're seeing from it, and hence all the info we have on it, is about 640 years old. We're possibly already looking at a dead star.

We won't know if it's dead until we get the light signature from this, and there's no way around that. When we argue about "it might go supernova soon" we mean "it might have gone supernova 640 years ago and we might just finally get around to seeing this soon."




Theory or not, it's looks a darker orange while Rigel looks white.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
People read that Betelgeuse is going to go nova...
Whether it is or it isn`t, people start to convince themselves that it looks different...
People look up at it and are so determined that it`s going to do something they fool themselves that it`s getting more orange.

If there were threads saying Mars was melting, people would locate mars on a star map and then start threads because they could see it melting, whether it was the case or not.

The naivety of people is truly worrying sometimes.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Just from a laymans POV, I'm not even an amateur astronomer but tend to be fascinated with the stars and get to know what's up there. Recently I have noticed that Betelgeuse seems to be more orange and bigger than usual. Maybe the supernova could be on the cards within the next couple of years



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


My response to this poster didn't have anything to do with color. It had to do with correcting his assertion that this star isn't going to change because we would have already known that despite not seeing it.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


LOL, my point is that you've seen Betelgeuse threads here lately, and stories in the news. Whether you've been posting about it or not, it's been on your mind more than it probably has been for a while, and certainly with the idea that it's changing. You're being told it might change, so now you (and all of the people who are running in to agree with you) are seeing a change. It's simple psychology, not astronomy.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


The part of your theory that is mistaken is the fact that you're assuming we get info on BG in "real-time" but do not see the light until it reaches here. All of the info we have on BG----everything we can see from it-----is as old as it is far away. What we're seeing from it, and hence all the info we have on it, is about 640 years old. We're possibly already looking at a dead star.



Umm... That is exactly what I said.... So how is that part incorrect? I agree... As I said in that post, if that star supernova'd 640 years ago, then there is a real possibility that we cold see it now. Did I not say that? I am pretty sure I did... Though I said 500 years...

I am not assuming that we are seeing it in real time... As I even explained. Looking at stars is like a window into the past. The light that first shone. Did so years ago. The light we are seeing from BG at this moment, first shone, 640 years ago. Pretty neat little fact...

That is the only way that this will happen. If the star super nova'd 640 years ago... But if I am not mistaken this thing claims it is GOING to super nova here soon. Not that it has.... Which is why I am saying, that if it explodes right this very second, we wont know for 640 years.

So... We are in agreement.... Maybe I just did not explain very well. But yes, I agree, if the star super nova'd 640 years ago, then we would be seeing it here very soon....

Again though, if I am not mistaken, this thing claims that it is GOING to, as in... Has not done so yet... In which case, we would not see it until 640 years after it super novas....

Yep we completely agree.


And for the record. It's not a theory. It's scientific fact that light takes exactly one year per light year to reach from point A to point B....But again, we completely agree... So, you already know that.



Though I do apologize if my post was not clear.
edit on 24-1-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


You're still not getting what I'm saying. You said "the fundamental scientific flaw" with the discussion was that if it went SN now we won't see it for 640 years. That's not a "fundamental scientific flaw" it's the reality of science. You're thinking that we're all talking about it "going supernova right now" which we're not. We're talking about it having gone supernova 640 years ago, and the evidence of that is finally showing up now, 640 years later. So we're discussing whether we will SEE it go supernova soon (as in, see what happened 640 years ago), not whether it will actually GO supernova soon.

Do try to keep up.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Does any one have a clear view of the night sky tonight?
If you do, does this star look any different?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


What gimme_some_truth is trying to say (if I'm right that is) is that the articles and people are wording this "event" incorrectly, as everyone says that it's going to go supernova and we might see it, when in truth it might be more precise to say that it MIGHT have already gone supernova. Yes both of you already know that light takes time to reach us, that's why he said that you're already on the same page. It's just a small misunderstanding. A silly misunderstanding if I can say that. =P



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Betelgeuse has always looked orange. At least it has always been orange when I have looked at it.
It hasn't suddenly changed colour on us.

Orion with orange BG
edit on 27-1-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Can anybody in Australia see any changes?
It's day time here in the US.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


It looks very much different to me. but then again so does everything else in the sky right now (especially venus). I live in the vegas valley though, and unless we get a good couple days of heavy wind, the pollution builds up, so I just think it's atmospheric.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Unreal, We have clouds here at Edwards tonight.
Can anyone see Orion and Betegeuse?
Do you notice anything different?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I still think that this star is darker than usual.
And it has nothing to do with the atmosphere.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I still think that this star is darker than usual.
And it has nothing to do with the atmosphere.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
yes,i did saw betelgeuse last week and i was shocked by the strong orange.the skies were clear,the other stars looked normal.
i've seen it dozens of times prior,nothing special about.
i just got in this forum,on another matter.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


You're still not getting what I'm saying. You said "the fundamental scientific flaw" with the discussion was that if it went SN now we won't see it for 640 years. That's not a "fundamental scientific flaw" it's the reality of science. You're thinking that we're all talking about it "going supernova right now" which we're not. We're talking about it having gone supernova 640 years ago, and the evidence of that is finally showing up now, 640 years later. So we're discussing whether we will SEE it go supernova soon (as in, see what happened 640 years ago), not whether it will actually GO supernova soon.

Do try to keep up.

No you try to keep up.... You are saying exactly what I am saying... WE AGREE!!!!!
edit on 27-5-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join