Supernova Star Blast"Could Wipe Out Earth" [Archive]

GhostofBolivar

07-01-2010, 02:21 AM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100106/twl-supernova-star-blast-could-wipe-out-3fd0ae9.html

Maybe those Mayan people were right all along:boo hoo:

The Mayan 'prophecy' isn't even a prophecy anyway (http://www.cracked.com/article_17445_6-best-2012-apocalypse-theories-are-all-bull****.html)

--------

07-01-2010, 08:51 AM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100106/twl-supernova-star-blast-could-wipe-out-3fd0ae9.html

Maybe those Mayan people were right all along:boo hoo:

There, there, poppet.

Drink 6 pints of bitter, eat three packets of salted peanuts, and lie down with a paper bag over your head.

It won't save you, but it might dull the agony when the Vogons arrive.

:rolleyes:

Viva_Palmeiras

08-01-2010, 12:36 PM

Just take a trip to Yellowstone National park instead. Much, much safer...

Rory89

08-01-2010, 01:45 PM

I thought this would be about Liam Gallagher's solo work.

(((Fergus)))

08-01-2010, 07:14 PM

When I was doing chemistry at school, 100% of the boffins/nerds were into blowing stuff up. Did anyone else have that experience or was it only at my school?

--------

09-01-2010, 11:10 AM

When I was doing chemistry at school, 100% of the boffins/nerds were into blowing stuff up. Did anyone else have that experience or was it only at my school?

In my experience, scientists/nerds are about TWO things, mainly, these days - blowing things up, and getting somebody to pay them big bucks to blow things up....

.... and publishing stories like this load of rubbish to get their names into the media so that even more people will come along and give them big bucks....

ginger_rice

09-01-2010, 11:50 AM

This smacks of the media's usual, lets just publicise the worst case scenario and ignore all the other possibilities.

It reminds me of an academic paper published a few years ago which stated that as a consequence of global warming sea levels could rise by anything between 20 mm and 2 m. The redtops the next day had banner headlines "SEA LEVELS TO RISE BY 2 METRES"

--------

09-01-2010, 01:31 PM

Hainan Hibs

09-01-2010, 11:52 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/07/no-a-nearby-supernova-wont-wipe-us-out/

Phew, nae need tae panic:greengrin

ginger_rice

10-01-2010, 04:34 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/07/no-a-nearby-supernova-wont-wipe-us-out/

Phew, nae need tae panic:greengrin

The UK paper The Sun — which is so awful fish complain when you wrap them in it :faf::faf:

Kaiser_Sauzee

12-01-2010, 12:41 PM

Andy74

12-01-2010, 02:08 PM

I assume we are looking at the thing with radio scopes which means that if it blew up NOW, it would be at least quite a lot of years before we knew anything about it.

Betelgeuse (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/30/betelgeuse-dying-telescope-star.html) is close to the Earth in galactic terms (a red hypergiant) and is ready to blow. You'll be able to see the light from the supernova during the day when it happens.

Well, I probably won't actually, it's ready to blow in the next few THOUSAND years.

And who thought up the name for the 'Very Large Telescope'?

Ed De Gramo

12-01-2010, 09:59 PM

Usual overhyped doomsday p!sh that gets mentioned every decade...i'm sure last decade's was some asteroid that narrowly missed us because we fired a laser at it...:faf:

(((Fergus)))

12-01-2010, 10:02 PM

Usual overhyped doomsday p!sh that gets mentioned every other day...i'm sure last decade's was some asteroid that narrowly missed us because we fired a laser at it...:faf:

Amended that for you. If it's not an asteroid it's the taliban, swine flu, illegal immigrants, snow

Ed De Gramo

12-01-2010, 10:07 PM

Amended that for you. If it's not an asteroid it's the taliban, swine flu, illegal immigrants, snow

Without going of at a tangent....Swine Flu was overhyped and turns out it was nothing more than a stronger version of the common flu :faf:

Kaiser_Sauzee

12-01-2010, 10:13 PM

Well, I probably won't actually, it's ready to blow in the next few THOUSAND years.

And who thought up the name for the 'Very Large Telescope'?

Royal you.... *sigh*.

SRHibs

13-01-2010, 08:40 AM

I assume we are looking at the thing with radio scopes which means that if it blew up NOW, it would be at least quite a lot of years before we knew anything about it.

Betelgeuse (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/30/betelgeuse-dying-telescope-star.html) is close to the Earth in galactic terms (a red hypergiant) and is ready to blow. You'll be able to see the light from the supernova during the day when it happens.

As far as I'm aware, Gamma Rays from a Supernova would travel at the speed of light. So as soon as we saw the light, our ozone layer would already be incinerated.

EDIT: Oh, I misread what you were saying.

i'm sure last decade's was some asteroid that narrowly missed us because we fired a laser at it...That's a new one to me?:confused:

ancient hibee

13-01-2010, 01:11 PM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100106/twl-supernova-star-blast-could-wipe-out-3fd0ae9.html

Maybe those Mayan people were right all along:boo hoo:
Not before we win the cup please.

GhostofBolivar

13-01-2010, 01:18 PM

I assume we are looking at the thing with radio scopes which means that if it blew up NOW, it would be at least quite a lot of years before we knew anything about it.

Betelgeuse (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/30/betelgeuse-dying-telescope-star.html) is close to the Earth in galactic terms (a red hypergiant) and is ready to blow. You'll be able to see the light from the supernova during the day when it happens.

Yeah, but it's over 3000 light years away, so it could have gone supernova long before Alexander the Great was born.

Pretty Boy

13-01-2010, 01:19 PM

The whole Mayan 2012 theory only attracts so much interest because the year 2012 sees an unusual event where the sun and earth are so aligned that we are blocked off from the centre of the Milky Way by the sun. Now the Mayans were a very smart group of people however this event also occured in 1998 and as far as i'm aware we are still here.

On another note the chances are when the human race is wiped out (which contrary to what some believe it will be) there is a reasonable chance it will be due to a cataclysmic collision with a comet, asteroid etc or blast from space caused by an exploding star.

sleeping giant

13-01-2010, 01:24 PM

If a star is (insert any distance) light years away does looking through a super telescope not bring that star nearer to the present time ?

I know what i mean , i hope someone else does :greengrin

Hainan Hibs

13-01-2010, 01:26 PM

Not before we win the cup please.

Can imagine it now, 89th minute of a SC Final, Hibs 3-0 up, and all of a sudden a star explodes and we're all gone:greengrin

sleeping giant

13-01-2010, 01:28 PM

Can imagine it now, 89th minute of a SC Final, Hibs 3-0 up, and all of a sudden a star explodes and we're all gone:greengrin

:agree:

Poor Nade

Pretty Boy

13-01-2010, 01:28 PM

I assume we are looking at the thing with radio scopes which means that if it blew up NOW, it would be at least quite a lot of years before we knew anything about it.

Betelgeuse (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/30/betelgeuse-dying-telescope-star.html) is close to the Earth in galactic terms (a red hypergiant) and is ready to blow. You'll be able to see the light from the supernova during the day when it happens.

The thing is we would learn about it as it destroyed us. The light from the event and therefore the news from the event travels at the speed of light but so does the destructiveness.

Due to that we would learn about it and die from it in the same instant.

sleeping giant

13-01-2010, 01:31 PM

Pretty Boy

13-01-2010, 01:35 PM

Another thing !
I constantly hear about big telescopes looking back in time in space towards the big bang !

Why can't they look the other way(:greengrin) to see where the edge of the universe is expanding into ?

Impossible. The reason being that as we look further away from ourselves into the distant universe we are actually looking further into the past. Say we observe a star 10 million light years away, we are seeing the light from that star 10 million years ago, as that star pulls further away from us we only see it as older and older. Therefore the further to the edge of the edge of the expanding universe we observe the further into the past we are looking.

sleeping giant

13-01-2010, 01:39 PM

Impossible. The reason being that as we look further away from ourselves into the distant universe we are actually looking further into the past. Say we observe a star 10 million light years away, we are seeing the light from that star 10 million years ago, as that star pulls further away from us we only see it as older and older. Therefore the further to the edge of the edge of the expanding universe we observe the further into the past we are looking.

So is the Edge of the universe and the centre of the universe the same thing then ?

Pretty Boy

13-01-2010, 02:07 PM

So is the Edge of the universe and the centre of the universe the same thing then ?

Essentially yes. The edge of the universe is a bit of a misleading statment, as is the centre. Space curves in a way which allows it to be boundless but finite. The best way to imagine it is if you had never seen a sphere before and were brought to earth no matter how hard you tried you would never find an edge, although you may end up back where you started and be flummoxed as to how it happened.

Essentially we are all the centre of the universe but not at the same time, we can't mathematically prove we are but we can't disprove it, scientist simply assume we are not. There is no definite point were one can stand and say this is where it all began.

The universe is in theory not truly expanding as such rather 'rushing apart'. Space, solar systems etc are not expanding or getting bigger they are merely 'drifting' apart into current space.

The visible universe(the universe we can see and know exists) is around a million million million million miles accross and the undiscovered(meta universe) is bigger still.

It's pretty crazy stuff to try and get our heads wround really.

sleeping giant

13-01-2010, 02:10 PM

Essentially yes. The edge of the universe is a bit of a misleading statment, as is the centre. Space curves in a way which allows it to be boundless but finite. The best way to imagine it is if you had never seen a sphere before and were brought to earth no matter how hard you tried you would never find an edge, although you may end up back where you started and be flummoxed as to how it happened.

Essentially we are all the centre of the universe but not at the same time, we can't mathematically prove we are but we can't disprove it, scientist simply assume we are not. There is no definite point were one can stand and say this is where it all began.

The universe is in theory not truly expanding as such rather 'rushing apart'. Space, solar systems etc are not expanding or getting bigger they are merely 'drifting' apart into current space.

The visible universe(the universe we can see and know exists) is around a million million million million miles accross and the undiscovered(meta universe) is bigger still.

It's pretty crazy stuff to try and get our heads wround really.

There was a device launched last year that was going to prove that this was not thr case.

I will dig up in the link:agree:

(((Fergus)))

13-01-2010, 02:17 PM

Essentially yes. The edge of the universe is a bit of a misleading statment, as is the centre. Space curves in a way which allows it to be boundless but finite. The best way to imagine it is if you had never seen a sphere before and were brought to earth no matter how hard you tried you would never find an edge, although you may end up back where you started and be flummoxed as to how it happened.

Essentially we are all the centre of the universe but not at the same time, we can't mathematically prove we are but we can't disprove it, scientist simply assume we are not. There is no definite point were one can stand and say this is where it all began.

The universe is in theory not truly expanding as such rather 'rushing apart'. Space, solar systems etc are not expanding or getting bigger they are merely 'drifting' apart into current space.

The visible universe(the universe we can see and know exists) is around a million million million million miles accross and the undiscovered(meta universe) is bigger still.

It's pretty crazy stuff to try and get our heads wround really.

It's a complicated way of saying "we don't know" :greengrin

Pretty Boy

13-01-2010, 02:21 PM

There was a device launched last year that was going to prove that this was not thr case.

I will dig up in the link:agree:

Please do, i think i remember reading it at the time. I think the overall idea was to discover the answer to K in Einsteins field equations which would show us the density and probable shape of the universe. Also potentially answering whether how or if the universe would end.

Twa Cairpets

13-01-2010, 02:33 PM

Essentially yes. The edge of the universe is a bit of a misleading statment, as is the centre. Space curves in a way which allows it to be boundless but finite. The best way to imagine it is if you had never seen a sphere before and were brought to earth no matter how hard you tried you would never find an edge, although you may end up back where you started and be flummoxed as to how it happened.

Essentially we are all the centre of the universe but not at the same time, we can't mathematically prove we are but we can't disprove it, scientist simply assume we are not. There is no definite point were one can stand and say this is where it all began.

The universe is in theory not truly expanding as such rather 'rushing apart'. Space, solar systems etc are not expanding or getting bigger they are merely 'drifting' apart into current space.

The visible universe(the universe we can see and know exists) is around a million million million million miles accross and the undiscovered(meta universe) is bigger still.

It's pretty crazy stuff to try and get our heads wround really.

I see. Oh, hang on (http://www.ugo.com/movies/best-death-scenes/images/entries/scanners.jpg)

Pretty Boy

13-01-2010, 03:22 PM

I see. Oh, hang on (http://www.ugo.com/movies/best-death-scenes/images/entries/scanners.jpg)

Exactly. Some of the greatest minds ever have been driven half mad by this stuff. It's all theoretical and constantly what was once 'science fact' is being disproven and replaced by new theories.

I think there are some things it's just best not to try to understand.

Kaiser_Sauzee

13-01-2010, 04:20 PM

The thing is we would learn about it as it destroyed us. The light from the event and therefore the news from the event travels at the speed of light but so does the destructiveness.

Due to that we would learn about it and die from it in the same instant.

Not so - we can view these distant objects using our very powerful telescopes effectively 'shortening' the distance between us as an observer and the object and looking 'back in time'.

sleeping giant

13-01-2010, 04:20 PM

Please do, i think i remember reading it at the time. I think the overall idea was to discover the answer to K in Einsteins field equations which would show us the density and probable shape of the universe. Also potentially answering whether how or if the universe would end.

Struggling to find it:grr:

I cant even find it in my history tab which is strange as i typed the name of the craft into mt search engine:confused:

Still trying though:greengrin

Kaiser_Sauzee

13-01-2010, 04:21 PM

So is the Edge of the universe and the centre of the universe the same thing then ?

Our concept of 'edge' and 'centre' does not apply to the Universe, which is multi-dimensional. :greengrin

Kaiser_Sauzee

13-01-2010, 04:26 PM

Essentially yes. The edge of the universe is a bit of a misleading statment, as is the centre. Space curves in a way which allows it to be boundless but finite. The best way to imagine it is if you had never seen a sphere before and were brought to earth no matter how hard you tried you would never find an edge, although you may end up back where you started and be flummoxed as to how it happened.

Essentially we are all the centre of the universe but not at the same time, we can't mathematically prove we are but we can't disprove it, scientist simply assume we are not. There is no definite point were one can stand and say this is where it all began.

The universe is in theory not truly expanding as such rather 'rushing apart'. Space, solar systems etc are not expanding or getting bigger they are merely 'drifting' apart into current space.

The visible universe(the universe we can see and know exists) is around a million million million million miles accross and the undiscovered(meta universe) is bigger still.

It's pretty crazy stuff to try and get our heads wround really.

Space itself is expanding, the objects are not moving apart. Like a balloon with dots on it, when it is inflated, the dots become more distant but are not moving apart independently.

steakbake

13-01-2010, 04:28 PM

Reality. Where do you begin?

(((Fergus)))

13-01-2010, 04:31 PM

Our concept of 'edge' and 'centre' does not apply to the Universe, which is multi-dimensional. :greengrin

Do you have any proof these other dimensions exist? :greengrin

steakbake

13-01-2010, 04:33 PM

Do you have any proof these other dimensions exist? :greengrin

Do you have any proof that they don't?

(((Fergus)))

13-01-2010, 04:34 PM

Do you have any proof that they don't?

"Can't prove a negative" :greengrin

steakbake

13-01-2010, 04:42 PM

"Can't prove a negative" :greengrin

Here's some that can be proven very easily:

Winston Churchill never watched "Friends"
I am not the giraffe keeper at the zoo.
Nade is not a football player.

(((Fergus)))

13-01-2010, 04:45 PM

Here's some that can be proven very easily:

Winston Churchill never watched "Friends"
I am not the giraffe keeper at the zoo.
Nade is not a football player.

1 out of 3 isn't bad :greengrin

Kaiser_Sauzee

13-01-2010, 04:49 PM

Do you have any proof these other dimensions exist? :greengrin

Mathematics 'proves' it but we can't 'prove it'. :greengrin

M Theory. (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41846.html) :thumbsup:

jabis

15-01-2010, 08:26 PM

Space itself is expanding, the objects are not moving apart. Like a balloon with dots on it, when it is inflated, the dots become more distant but are not moving apart independently.

:woohoo:

Kaiser_Sauzee IS Terry Prachett :thumbsup: