Recent Events Beyond Earth

This thread is for any pictures or articles on universal events. I have an article on a supernova to start it. With a link to the site.

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/57291.html

"The death of a star in a galaxy some 240 million light years away produced the brightest supernova ever viewed. The star is thought to have been massive -- more than 100 times the weight of our own sun. The first generation of stars were similarly massive, astronomers believe, so this new supernova may provide a rare glimpse at how the first stars died".

I was thinking that as the earths sun reduces in mass then we would be drawn closer. The forces keeping all the stars moons suns etc. the same distance apart are massive hey.

The vastness of space and the concept of time (As we have invented) is well demonstrated in this enormous event.

What science veiwed was an event 240 million years old.

Infact possibly much more.
As the universe is expanding at a rate nearing the speed of light,it is possible that the event could have happened in a galaxy actually moving away from our galaxy. If so this event could have occured Billions of years ago.

Kinda makes you feel in significant really.

astronomers seem to think this kind of supermassive supernova is the type responsible for seeding the universe with all the heavier elements. all the carbon, iron and what have you in your body was originally created in a star and seeded to the universe in explosions like this one. i'll just reiterate this bit - the heavy matter that makes up your body was created in a star billions of years ago.

usually supernovas only blow the top layer of material off a star, while the dense core compacts into a neutron star or collapses into a black hole. however this one is rare in that it not only blew off the top layers, it blew the entire core apart spraying gobs of superheated matter into the galaxy surrounding it. these gobs of matter, over time, then go on to form other stellar bodies.

when our sun turns into a red giant in a few billion years we will actually drift further away from the sun, because as the sun loses mass by burning its fuel, the gravity holding the earth to its orbit becomes weaker, so we drift further and further out. gravity is a by product of mass, the suns mass is made up of hydrogen, and as the sun burns hydrogen it loses mass. therefore its gravity becomes weaker over time. however as the sun becomes a red giant it expands and will swallow the orbits of mercury and venus, and possibly earth so its the same outcome as drifting closer, just a different mechanism

if you want to see something that will really bake your noodle, watch this animation on the 10 dimensions.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Wysiwyg said:

The death of a star in a galaxy some 240 million light years away produced the brightest supernova ever viewed.
The star is thought to have been massive -- more than 100 times the weight of our own sun.

Click to expand...

Must have been one of these big fellas

What an amazing way to show the scale of our Universe! Not even Tech's charts are that convincing!

I am utterly gobsmackered..........

Cheers Y'all

disarray said:

when our sun turns into a red giant in a few billion years we will actually drift further away from the sun, because as the sun loses mass by burning its fuel, the gravity holding the earth to its orbit becomes weaker, so we drift further and further out. gravity is a by product of mass, the suns mass is made up of hydrogen, and as the sun burns hydrogen it loses mass. therefore its gravity becomes weaker over time. however as the sun becomes a red giant it expands and will swallow the orbits of mercury and venus, and possibly earth so its the same outcome as drifting closer, just a different mechanism
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Click to expand...

Hi dissaray...You may very well be correct on the distance between earth and sun becoming closer.My reasoning is : with the suns mass becoming less there would be less resistance between the two masses.I don`t know if mass attraction/resistance works like magnetism, north and south poles.

Anyway your theory could be right.Except that if you look at the information below it shows that a greater mass does not mean a closer planet to the sun.For instance pluto (which is officially no longer a planet and now there are 8 planets in the solar system) has less mass than mars but is much further away.So I don`t what determines the distance from the sun of the planets.I think that all the other `celestial bodies` influence each other so that would probably account for the differences there.

Anyway as I was saying my thought were along the lines of less resistance (like magnetism) between the Sun and Earth would bring the two closer but I might be misinterpreting what gravity is.Maybe the distance will stay the same but the gravitational force on the Earth will change.The event has never happened so I suppose we won`t know until it does (certainly not a change in a life time).

Name........Orbits........Distance....Radius....Mass
...............................(000 km)......(km).....(kg)

Sun.........................................697000...1.99e30
Jupiter........Sun...........778000......71492...1.90e27
Saturn........Sun.........1429000......60268...5.69e26
Uranus........Sun.........2870990......25559...8.69e25 *
Neptune......Sun.........4504300......24764...1.02e26 *
Earth..........Sun...........149600.......6378...5.98e24
Venus.........Sun...........108200.......6052...4.87e24
Mars...........Sun...........227940.......3398...6.42e23


O.K. back on thread...Here is a deep field picture of other galaxies from the hubble telescope (coupla years old I think).This picture they say is like looking through a eight foot long straw.So a pinhole picture. Is there life out there hmmmmmmmmmmmm ...

ABOUT THIS IMAGE:
Galaxies, galaxies everywhere - as far as NASA's Hubble Space Telescope can see. This view of nearly 10,000 galaxies is the deepest visible-light image of the cosmos. Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, this galaxy-studded view represents a "deep" core sample of the universe, cutting across billions of light-years.

The snapshot includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colors. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, may be among the most distant known, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old. The nearest galaxies - the larger, brighter, well-defined spirals and ellipticals - thrived about 1 billion years ago, when the cosmos was 13 billion years old.

In vibrant contrast to the rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was younger and more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge.

The Ultra Deep Field observations, taken by the Advanced Camera for Surveys, represent a narrow, deep view of the cosmos. Peering into the Ultra Deep Field is like looking through an eight-foot-long soda straw.

Sorry , I left out ...

Name..........Orbits......Distance...Radius.......Mass

Mercury.......Sun.........57910.......2439...3.30e23
Pluto...........Sun......5913520.......1160...1.32e22



P.s....I can just imagine how different life would have (or is ) evolving elsewhere in the universe.:silly:

Anyone know how they know it's 240 million light years away
(clever dudes)
I guess just becos it doesn't fit into the scheme of things any closer than that
PS speed of light unchanged - red shift determines speed etc

2020hindsight said:

Anyone know how they know it's 240 million light years away
(clever dudes)
I guess just becos it doesn't fit into the scheme of things any closer than that
PS speed of light unchanged - red shift determines speed etc

Click to expand...

Hi 2020hindsight,

I often wonder about the universe as to how many planerts there are out there waiting to be discovered. I imagine that within the next century or so there may well be another 20 planets or so discovered.

greggy said:

Hi 2020hindsight,

I often wonder about the universe as to how many planerts there are out there waiting to be discovered. I imagine that within the next century or so there may well be another 20 planets or so discovered.

Click to expand...

Greggy,
I reckon that if you bet only 20 planets (of distant stars) that's a real safe bet
Think I've found how they measure distance - good enough it seems to just use red shift. , i.e. the big bang expansion is so well quantified that they measure distance by the speed at which the object is moving away from us ( making things appear a fraction redder) etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

For galaxies more distant than the Local Group and the nearby Virgo Cluster, but within a thousand megaparsecs or so, the redshift is approximately proportional to the galaxy's distance. This correlation was first observed by Edwin Hubble and has come to be known as Hubble's law. Vesto Slipher was the first to discover galactic redshifts, in about the year 1912, while Hubble correlated Slipher's measurements with distances he measured by other means to formulate his Law. In the widely accepted cosmological model based on general relativity, redshift is mainly a result of the expansion of space: this means that the farther away a galaxy is from us, the more the space has expanded in the time since the light left that galaxy, so the more the light has been stretched, the more redshifted the light is, and so the faster it appears to be moving away from us. Hubble's law follows in part from the Copernican principle.[49] Because it is usually not known how luminous objects are, measuring the redshift is easier than more direct distance measurements, so redshift is sometimes in practice converted to a crude distance measurement using Hubble's law

Click to expand...

.
But please prove this assumption wrong if you know better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder With few exceptions, fundamental distances are available only out to about a thousand parsecs, which is a modest portion of our own Galaxy. For distances beyond that, measures depend upon physical assumptions, that is, the assertion that one recognizes the object in question, and the class of objects is homogeneous enough that its members can be used for meaningful estimation of distance.

Almost all of these physical distance indicators are standard candles. These rely upon recognizing an object as belonging to some class, which has some known absolute magnitude, measuring its apparent magnitude, and using the inverse square law to infer the distance needed to make the "candle" appear at its observed brightness. Some means of accounting for interstellar extinction, which also makes objects appear fainter, is also needed. The difference between absolute and apparent magnitudes is called the distance modulus, and astronomical distances, especially intergalactic ones, are sometimes tabulated in this way.

Physical distance indicators, used on progressively larger distance scales, include:

Main sequence fitting, usually for open clusters of stars
Cepheids and novae
Individual galaxies in clusters of galaxies
The Tully-Fisher relation
Type Ia supernovae
Redshifts and Hubble's Law

Click to expand...

then there are calibrations like "red clump" (apparently) - gee I love wikipedia lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_clump

2020hindsight said:

Greggy,
I reckon that if you bet only 20 planets (of distant stars) that's a real safe bet
Think I've found how they measure distance - good enough it seems to just use red shift. , i.e. the big bang expansion is well quantified that they measure distance by the speed at which the object is moving awat fromus ( making things appear a fraction redder) etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
.
But please prove this assumption wrong if you know better

Click to expand...

It was basically a rough guess (20 planets). I don't have a scientific background )I only studied economics, politics and history at uni), but have always wondered what else is out there.

Anyone know how they know it's 240 million light years away
(clever dudes)
I guess just becos it doesn't fit into the scheme of things any closer than that
PS speed of light unchanged - red shift determines speed etc.

Click to expand...

Don`t know for sure but probably a reflective thing , going on the speed of light..

Wik says that light travels at 1,079,252,848.8 km/h , which if multiplied by 8760 (the number of hours in a standard year) would mean that light would travel 9,454,254,955,488 kilometres in an earth year.

So knowing this we can calculate that 240 million light years is about (give or take a few metres) 2,269,021,189,317,120,000,000 km. away.This is not difficult to understand.A drive to your local shopping centre will help you understand these things.Good luck.

In reality I`m sure these years are approximations , the images are historical so what is happening now we won`t know for a long time , the further away they are.

Wysiwyg said:

Don`t know for sure but probably a reflective thing , going on the speed of light..

Wik says that light travels at 1,079,252,848.8 km/h , which if multiplied by 8760 (the number of hours in a standard year) would mean that light would travel 9,454,254,955,488 kilometres in an earth year.

So knowing this we can calculate that 240 million light years is about (give or take a few metres) 2,269,021,189,317,120,000,000 km. away.This is not difficult to understand.A drive to your local shopping centre will help you understand these things.Good luck.

In reality I`m sure these years are approximations , the images are historical so what is happening now we won`t know for a long time , the further away they are.

Click to expand...

All real, yet trivial and impractical, until we manage to travel with speed of million times the speed of light.

Wysiwyg said:

Don`t know for sure but probably a reflective thing , going on the speed of light..
...In reality I`m sure these years are approximations , the images are historical so what is happening now we won`t know for a long time , the further away they are.

Click to expand...

Yep - here's an old post from "homework" thread. 300,000 km/sec (as measured way back when 1670 or some such - incredible in itself). PS the moon is a bit over a light second away.

during the 1670's, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer was making extremely careful observations of Jupiter's moon Io. Roemer was able to calculate a value for the speed of light. The number he came up with was about 186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second.

Click to expand...

and given that light travels at same speed towards us as away from us, (as I understand it) - give or take our respective velocities since - (let's assume we are each moving apart at similar speeds)- they would be simultaneously seeing us (approx) I guess for the first time - in whatever state we were in 240 million years ago. - in fact if they had a telescope they'd see some early Triassic dinasaurs, and first mammals and crocodiles - and modern coral - insects etc (fun to imagine these things isn't it

Trouble is they were pretty well fried up 240 mill years ago, so only if they'd been wearing asbestos suits then and since etc.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=141008&highlight=300,000#post141008 speed of light notes on "internet resources for kids" thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale

PS As for images being historical, whenever I look at the missus I pretend that the light reaching me left her 30 years ago - gee she looks good

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=436
interesting website on astrological matters - ripper in fact
think of a question - they'll have the answer (pretty much)

links to NASA as well (where these maps come from) - amazing, but they defy understanding lol, but it's also amazing that anyone understands them
"clues to the first thillionth of a second of the universe of big bamg etc"
(yep I lie awake all night thinking of that one ...)
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html

Wysiwyg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2006gy also discusses your SN 2006gy supernova explosion.
Note the reference to much closer one (and similar size) which will potentially be visible even ny daylight on Earth - may cause radiation probs etc

" if Eta Carinæ exploded in a similar fashion, it would be bright enough that one could read by its light here on Earth nights, and would even be visible during the day time."

Although the SN 2006gy supernova is intrinsically about ten times as luminous than SN 1987A, which was bright enough to be seen by the naked eye, SN 2006gy was more than 1,400 times as far away as SN 1987A, and too far away to be seen without a telescope.[7]

Light curve of SN 2006gy (uppermost intermittent squares) compared with other types of supernovae.

Similarity to Eta Carinæ. Eta Carinæ (η Carinæ or η Car) is a highly luminous hypergiant star located approximately 7,500 light years from Earth in the Milky Way galaxy. Since Eta Carinæ is 32,000 times closer than SN2006gy, the light from it will be almost a billion-fold brighter. It is estimated to be similar in size to the star which became SN2006gy. Dave Pooley, one of the discoverers of SN2006gy, says that if Eta Carinæ exploded in a similar fashion, it would be bright enough that one could read by its light here on Earth nights, and would even be visible during the day time. SN2006gy's Apparent magnitude (m) is 15,[1] so a similar event at Eta Carinæ will have an m of about -7.5. According to astrophysicist Mario Livio, this could happen at any time, but the risk to life on Earth would be low.[8]

Click to expand...

Likewise NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/chandra_bright_supernova.html
This largely mimics what you said in post #1 :-

Astronomers think many of the first generation of stars were this massive, and this new supernova may thus provide a rare glimpse of how the first stars died. It is unprecedented, however, to find such a massive star and witness its death. The discovery of the supernova, known as SN 2006gy, provides evidence that the death of such massive stars is fundamentally different from theoretical predictions.

"Of all exploding stars ever observed, this was the king," said Alex Filippenko, leader of the ground-based observations at the Lick Observatory at Mt. Hamilton, Calif., and the Keck Observatory in Mauna Kea, Hawaii. "We were astonished to see how bright it got, and how long it lasted."

Click to expand...

PS the photo in post #1 is strictly artists impression (apparently)- if we could have got up close - but this website has others:-
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/animations.html#sn2006gy_anim
first and second photos from artists impression animation
third and fourth from what was actually observed

Hope this works some old pictures of some gas clouds
Recently read "the elegant universe" I don't know how those quantum physicists sleep at night its all a little weird for me.How can time not be a constant? The book had an example of how if you sat just outside of the event horizon of a black hole that time is warped so much that a year there would take the same time as 100 years here

kel said:

How can time not be a constant? The book had an example of how if you sat just outside of the event horizon of a black hole that time is warped so much that a year there would take the same time as 100 years here

Click to expand...

Quite easily.

Heidegger explained time as a 4 dimensional (from memory) thing, that is in reality of a spiral in nature, but perceived as linear.

Time cannot be a constant because it is observed differently by the subjects themselves. This can be seen in coma survivors, people's perceptions whilst on drugs and even the effects adrenalin has on various people (paricularly slow motion like effects).

It is entirely possible this accounts for people's "near death experiences" or even differences in people's intelligence.