April 23rd, 2007, 05:51 PM
A super nova is an explosion of the sun, this is caused when the sun is old enough to resist more energy the sun explodes by my knowledge a sun 1st implodes then it explodes. When this great explosion caused if the energy is high and the damage is great a super nova can create a black hole a hole in space that sucks in everything in its direction path the hole also disturbs time.
I think after supernova explosion a pulsar or neutron star is formed. This neutron star under the gravity of its own contracts and a stage comes when it disappers to form black holes which have a very high gravitational field that a light cannot even pass undeflected.
April 24th, 2007, 01:36 AM
is this a question or a statement ?Originally Posted by Gablo51
April 24th, 2007, 03:02 AM
Perhaps, in need of confirmation.is this a question or a statement ?
Supernovae Spectral Types
There is more than one type of supernova. Rudolph Minkowski set up a classification system based upon some major characteristics of their spectras. [Minkowski, R., Spectra of Supernovae, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 53, No. 314, p.224. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...ASP...53..224M]
Type I have no hydrogen lines in their spectra, while Type II do. Later, the Type I supernovae were subdivided as follows:
Type Ia has no helium lines, strong silicon lines at maximum magnitude and iron group emission lines in its later stages.
Type Ib has helium lines and no silicon lines at maximum magnitude. Often these will be about 1 - 2 magnitudes fainter than Ia types.
Type Ic has no helium lines and no silicon lines at maximum magnitude. Oxygen and calcium lines my appear in the later stages.
The Type II supernovae are subdivided on the basis of whether their brightness plateaus, then falls in a regular manner (Type IIp), or reaches a maximum and falls off from this, again in a linear way (Type IIL).
Supernovae Causes
Supernovae are caused by one of two principal mechanisms:
Destruction of a stellar companion to a white dwarf in a contact binary system. These account for the Type 1a supernovae.
Catastrophic demise of massive stars (more than ten times solar mass) account for all other supernovae types. The differences between the spectral types are due to variations in the specific history of the star, sometimes related to the effects of nearby companions.
Ib has lost its hydrogen envelope, while helium ‘burns’ on a carbon-oxygen core.
1c has also lost its helium.
The loss of hydrogen and helium is either due to very strong solar winds, or to gravitational stripping by close companion stars.
Type II supernovae have retained at least some of their hydrogen atmosphere.
Supernova Remnants
The typical remnant of a supernova will be a very dense object, either a neutron star, or, if sufficiently massive, a black hole. This is not thought to be the case for Type 1a supernovae, the type produced in contact binary systems. In these instances no central object survives the event.
Supernovae Numbers
Since 1885 over three and a half thousand supernovae have been observed. A current list is maintained here.
www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/lists/Supernovae.html
Very well put Ophiolite.
And I might add, in regards to the original post, our sun will never go supernova. It simply has no where near the mass.
Cheers
Good thing, too. Imagine what would happen to future generations if they got blown up by a supernova. But I am aware that our sun will get big enough to engulf at least Mercury and Venus. Is this correct?
i think mars too... and when the sun's life ends so will life on earth. it doesn't make a difference to future generations whether it goes supernova or not.
the heavy mass like big stars are balanced with its gravitational force and preasure. when the star dies, it cant apply any preasure and it becomes imbalance. so the gravity pulls all the mass, there and make itself a black hole. i guess!
But not, as noted above, for the sun. The sun will become a pale white dwarf. If it were more massive only then it would it become either a neutron star, or a black hole.
May 4th, 2007, 01:58 AM
Supernover is a theory, people can give an opinion and thats all, until its provern, not much more can be said
i thought they had been observed, you sure its just a theory?
May 4th, 2007, 07:03 PM
Yes, Supernova HAVE been observed. they clearly outshine all other stars in its galaxy.
May 7th, 2007, 05:32 PM
All stars which are distant suns, what they see is light that travelled million years and more ago, now what ever actually happens to a sun doesn’t happen in actual time, astronomers try and give an explanation to what happens out in space by calculation they made according to how they expect it to be reality on our EARTH , Astronomers haven’t seen anything in real time…Whether on day if people can will explore the universe and beyond may have a totally different explanation what actually happen in space.
errr... why do they have to see it in real time? Whats wrong with seeing something that happened a million years a go?
Can a star not simply consume all its fuel and become a cold lump of whatever is left?
well that's a black hole, neutron star or white dwarf. When it runs out of fuel there is not outward force and the gravity is so strong it causes it to collapse in on itself. All that is left is as you said, a lump of the leftovers with stronger gravity depending on how big the star was.
Please pardon my ignorance while I try to wrap my head around this. In my imagination I have always put stars in the oversized gas giant category. You know, a collections of gasses out in space that reached some critical mass and ignited. Its moons then became planets and so on. I figured that when it was all said and done you would have some sort of black solar system with a cold lump of slag in the middle. Why do gas giants not collapse?
If this is an inappropriate line of questions for this thread please let me know.
yes, your imagination has served you well.
Astronomers have little knowledge about the planets with in our Solar system, how would they able to give an explanation off what happened 1 million years ago...
light takes a long time to travel. When you look into the sky at night those stars aren't as they are currently, some are as they were millions or billions of years a go. By examining other stars with such telescopes as hubble they could see what has happened MANY years a go.
It’s still a theory as not proven, have they made a sun and caused it to explode in a lab to see what the out come would be.
May 9th, 2007, 03:31 PM
It is irrelevant when the event occured, th e point is we can see it. (And over three and a half thousand supernovae have been observed since 1885, as I noted in my earlier post in this thread.)
You have never seen the sun in real time. Astronomers have never seen the sun in real time. No one has ever seen the sun in real time. It takes roughly eight minutes for the light from the sun to reach us. Does this mean our theories on how the sun works are flawed, that they are wrong? Of course it doesn't. Neither does it mean that supernovaes do not exist because it has taken thousands, or millions of years for the light to reach us.
Now you are just displaying a singular ignorance. We know a great deal about the planets of the solar system: we understand their orbital character, their mode of formation, their chemistry and physics, their weather, their geology, their history. We have a vast amount of data on the planets and an extensive understanding.Astronomers have little knowledge about the planets with in our Solar system, how would they able to give an explanation off what happened 1 million years ago...
If you don't understand how scientists can determine what happened one million years ago I recommend you read some basic popular books on astronomy or geology or cosmology. If you wish specific references I shall be happy to provide them.
Ophiolite there are books that u can find that would give a very good explanation about any topic, doesn't mean you should believe them all. Many thousand years ago people used to think the earth was flat and there was an edge were u could fall off. When technology improved that was proven wrong, now one day when man is able to see these phenomena’s from close up who knows what these light wonders might be, or black hole might really be.
We have a vast array of observational data, theoretical frameworks, and computer simulations, that indicate the nature of supernova is as close to being what we think it is as our perception that the Earth is not flat. The only reason you appear to have for thinking they might be somethign different is that you are unaware of this vast body of observations.
That is not good science. It is not even very good superstition.
Agian the word theoretical frameworks, and computer simulations, that indicate the nature of supernova is as close to being what we think it is.
Proves my point, it's a theory, not fact
I think, tjosi, that you don't understand how powerful theories and computer simulations can be. If we build a theory upon known physics, and if observations and experiments don't contradict the theory, and the theory can predict previously unknown phenomena which is later verified by observations, then the theory is probably on the right track. Look at history and some of your favorite theories. General relativity comes to mind.
Plus, observing something in "real time" will make the results no different than observing it as we presently do.
Did I miss something? What is it that you are trying to say?
It's done all the time in computer simulations. Some simulations succeed where others fail. You do realize that to do the real experiment on Earth is virtually impossible... right?It’s still a theory as not proven, have they made a sun and caused it to explode in a lab to see what the out come would be.
Cheers
Back in the day when they thought the world was flat, they came to the conclusion by the recourses they had at that time
And you propose that we somehow will come to drastically different conclusions when we observe these things close up...?
Guess what... it was thought the Earth was flat because it was observed close up!
Something to think about....
Cheers
My whole argument is it's a only a theory, not fact
when they thought the world was flat, what did they base that off of? Well, not much... They had never seen this edge, it was a hypothesis without any evidence. Whereas we are observing and examining supernovas. Are they exactly as we think they are? Possibly, but I doubt it. They will be mostly the same but some technicalities are probably wrong.
Meaning off Theory
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Meaning off Fact
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact
3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.
5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case
My theory of what is seen to be a supernova, could be a war that happened between alien nations, which caused catastrophic explosions that is what the light is that you see…
The supernovers could be planets exploding during and Alien war that happened
that is a joke, right?
Well can u prove it to be wrong
yes. There is a clear difference between a star and planet. They observe stars going supernova not a planet.
Tell me what would it look like if a planet 100 light years away was hit by a bomb more power full than 1000000 Nuclure bombs going off at the same time.
i see what your saying but the light doesn't just appear as if a huge bomb blew up a planet. They see the star and follow it for years first.
If a planet was to explode in this way, you would not see the planet exploding but the after effects off the explosion from that distance
Which could look like a star
I have another theory for u, what if the stars out there are rips in that part off the universe and what your actually seeing is light protruding from other dimensions
Tjosi,
Why don't you pick up an introduction to astronomy book and read up on supernovae - see what we know about them. You'll see that scientific "theories" are quite a bit different than your present idea of a "theory" as evidenced by the ones you propose.
Cheers
A theory is just about as good as it gets in science. I really can't be arsed to spend the time explaining this yet again to someone who seems determined to remain ignorant.
Refer to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Wherein you will read, amongst other things:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.
tjosi, I have nothing against ignorance. Indeed it is a wonmderful thing, for it holds the promise of knowledge to come. I am, however, violently offended by persistent ignorance in the face of opportunity to remove such ignorance. I do hope you are not about to violently offend me. 8)
i'll induldge him
If this were to happen the supernova, or bomb, would appear out of pritty much nowhere, as planets are very dim. Whereas these stars have been followed and were known to be stars before these "explosions". Therefore they can not be planets.
These stars have been closely examined. We know much more about them then you think.
Ignorance is some one who is a million light years away from the event and looking through a device, and coming to conclusions about phenomena that happens and comes to a conclusion on the basis of his his own surroundings, meaning there is a sun in our galaxie so all stars must be suns in those galaxies, so the explosion is a sun exploding.when you are giving an explanation, call it a theory, don't use the word fact in your explanations.
Because the planets in our Galaxie don't Glow, how would you know iff planets in Galaxies million light years away don't glow, how would u know what compounds those planets are made up off
May 10th, 2007, 07:21 PM
We sent a probe called Voyager 1 out of the solar system. We know this happened because we spent millions of dollars making the rocket and it's communication systems which work by radio transmissions. Radio is a form of light wave, We know this because we made the radios.
When we recieve radio transmissions from Voyager1, they are now delayed by a number of hours. We know this because Voyager 1 carries a computer which can tell the time through CPU cycles. The Delay is not caused by a message buffer, because we know the systems because we built them, so it cannot be accounted for because of this. Einstein proposed, many years before Voyager 1 was built, that Light travelled at a finite, and constant, speed. A measurable speed. Just like a car travelling down a road is travelling at a measurable speed, the radio waves, which is a form of light, have to travel between it's source and it's observer. The travel is not instant. Have you ever seen a car go from one place to another without moving through the two places inch by inch? Never happens, and it never happens with light either. There is no such thing as a Transportation beam in real life, even in space. To get from one place to another you have to travel through the space between those 2 points. Light is the same.
So when we get the transmission of data from Voyager 1, some 9 hours after it sent the data, do we dismiss this as being "In the past". We could, because it is not the transmission it is currently sending. However the truth is that Voyager1 Did send that data. It has not been changed in it's travels here, only delayed because it had so far to travel.
When you see the light from a star 60 light years away, the light you see was emitted 60 years ago. It is a constant stream however, unbroken. It has not been changed during it's passage, it is the exact light that was emitted 60 years ago unchanged. Next year you will see the light emitted 60 years before next year. It is like highway traffic. You see a car zoom past and you know it travelled here from somewhere else. You can assume it came from further up the road, because it did. There is nowhere else it could have come from. That car did not burst into existance the moment you saw it, It came from somewhere you could not see, and will continue along the road till you can see it no more. At this moment of time it is in your vision, but when it leaves your vision it does not cease to exist, it just continues on it's way.
the 60 year old light from the star is the same. It started 60 years ago on the photosphere of the star. 30 years ago it was travelling past a location 30 light years away in the direction of the star. Right now it is passing earth and we can look at it. in 3 seconds it's passed the orbit of the moon and continuing. It is the same light the whole time. Just a little package of photons carrying energy
Voyager 1 is transmitting. It has data. lots of numbers, computerized data. This data does not change after it is transmitted. Even after 8 hours it is still exactly the same. It sprays off in all directions. as it passes earth, for that millisecond, it is seen by a sattelite dish and it's information goes into a computer. The computer reads the data. All of the information Voyager 1 sent is there. The computer reads it and decodes it and shows some numbers on a screen. Meanwhile the spillover of data is already passed the moon. in 4 years that data will pass by the star Alpha Centauri, this same unchanged packet of radio waves carrying some encoded computer information. in 200,000 years it will leave the galaxy, this little piece of invisible radio-wave light carrying computer information from Voyager 1. The data will be unchanged. If someone were there, running IBM's Voyager 1 program they too could pick up this information in 200,000 years time, 200,000 light years away.
The star light is exactly the same. It does not change as it travels, and it travels rather slowly from a galactic perspective. The star Alpha Centaurus, when you look at the night sky, you are looking at Alpha Centaurus's light that it gave off 4 years ago from it's surface. in that 4 years the light has remained unchanged on it's long journey to Earth. It collides now with Earth's surface, with the retina of someone's eye and is processed as a visual signal in someone's brain. Meanwhile that light which did not collide with earth continues it's neverending journey. in 20 years some more of that light will collide with another planet, nobody will be there to see it though. in 300,000 years it leaves the galaxy in one direction, from the other direction it is still traversing the galaxy having flown through the centre of it. The light is travelling in all directions, and unlike Voyager 1, the fact that someone's eye retina detected this light from A Centauri, was a mere co-incidence. There is no information here encoded into this light. It is simply light, due to intense heat in a ball of hydrogen which is thousands of times larger than the ball of rock you are standing on.
Thus what you see in the night sky, billions of stars at various distances, is real. The further away the star is, the longer light is taking to get to you, but like the cars on the highway, the light photons did originate at the surface of the stars. They may or may not still be there right now, but the light we see is real. Every bit as real as seeing Peter Honnager's car driving down the M3 motorway and knowing that it travelled here from Peter Honnager's house having left the surface of his front porch 20 minutes ago. Every bit as real as seeing the data from Voyager 1 and knowing it was emitted from Voyager 1's Digital Transmitter 8 hours ago, but still contains the unaltered computer data emitted at that time. Knowing that right now Voyager is not transmitting this data, but newer data. Data you will not see for another 8 hours. However when you get it, Voyager will be transmitting yet more data, different data. You don't say this data is fake because it is old. it was real at the time of transmission, it's reality is not effected simply because it was delayed. Otherwise the bus you catch to school would be fake every other day
"The Bus is late! I'm not getting on because it's not real! It must be dangerous to ride on a fake bus!"
Do you know how light is made?
Rocks don't glow. And "Glowing" is a rather dim property of chemical reactions. To see things from far away you need a really really bright light. A million football fields of light might be able to be seen from 300km up (in orbit) but by the time you reach the moon, the combination of all the lightbulbs in the world is a rather dim phenomenon.
By the time you hit where Voyager 1 is, (and yes it did take a picture) the earth is so hard to see its not even worth taking a picture of.
To get an object as bright as the sun there is only 2 ways to do it. Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission.
In space, Hydrogen is the most common element. It literally makes up over 99% of the gasses in space. This is the best element for Fusion.
For Fission you need an unstable heavy element. We use the easiest element to cause to Fissile in Neuclear Reactors. Uranium 232. This element in it's natural state is a big lump of heavy metallic rock. to make it fissile you need to extract and refine it in big smelters and such. The element has huge numbers of fused-together protons.
Now we know Stars are capable of fusing protons like this (it's how they get energy in fact, Fusing hydrogen protons together to cause energy)
This fusing in stars is not a concious process. It is not looking for energy, it is simply a reaction. The star simply weighs so much because of it's size that gravity literally crushes atoms together under the surface of the star. This crushing together pushes the atoms so hard up against each other that the protons stop repelling each other and lock in, causing a large energy release. That energy is Photons. Heat, Pressure, Light, Radiation.
How do we know this is how it works? well I'll save you the theoretical physics and just show you the H Bomb. The H bomb is a weapon of war which can level a city. It works by causing an implosion on Hydrogen atoms which increases the pressure on the atoms. This implosion...
(yep, I just quoted myself)pushes the atoms so hard up against each other that the protons stop repelling each other and lock in, causing a large energy release. That energy is Photons. Heat, Pressure, Light, Radiation.
Thus an H Bomb is a mini Man-Made Star with a very short life span due to the very small amount of Hydrogen available to the bomb. (Remember the Sun has enough Hydrogen in it that you could fill an Earth-sized container over a million times... ie it's really really huge).
So unless you can build a H bomb thousands of times larger than Planet Earth, your not going to produce enough light to see from further than 5 light years away.
musicalaviator May be i should have used the word light instead off Glow,
This is the third time i am saying this... you refuse to listen to this single point. THERE IS LIGHT VISIBLE FOR YEARS BEFORE THE STARS GO SUPERNOVA. THE BIG "EXPLOSION" DOESN'T JUST APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE.
Shawngoldw Ignorance is some one who is a million light years away from the event and looking through a device, and coming to conclusions about phenomena that happens and comes to a conclusion on the basis of his his own surroundings, meaning there is a sun in our galaxie so all stars must be suns in those galaxies, so the explosion is a sun exploding.When you are giving an explanation, call it a theory, don't use the word fact in your explanations, Because the planets in our Galaxie don't produse a light bright enough to see 1000 light years away, how would you know iff planets in Galaxies million light years away don't produse a light that bright enough for us to see, how would u know what compounds or gases those planets are made up off , i thing you arn't understanding what i am trying to suggest...it's not about a bomb exploding or planet blowing up.
[quote="tjosi"] meaning there is a sun in our galaxie so all stars must be suns in those galaxies, so the explosion is a sun exploding.quote]
you realize that the sun is a star, right?
I understand what you are trying to say but I am refuting the specific points you say. And as I have said, stars have been studied very closely. Closely enough to see it is a big ball of, for your sake, fire not a planet.
shawngoldw, Taking into consideration that we are talking about 100's light years away, how would u be able to distinguish light coming from a fire or light being produced by other means...before u ask what other means. I don't know what else could be bright enough; if I did I would make a fortune if I had that technology and i do know a STAR is a Sun.
Well it's either coming from a STAR or there's some huge intergalactic Race with a penchant for setting off Nuke Bombs which are thousands of times larger than planets. Since we'v never seen said aliens, and we have seen stars, and we also know that it would take an industrial might far exceeding anything remotley possible for all but the most advanced galaxy-spanning civilization and so much fissile material that it would naturally form stars anyway if it were just sitting in space for long enough... well it's stars. Weather they were put there by aliens or naturally occured is beyond the scope of this conversation really, just the point is it's a massive Hydrogen Fusion Nuclear reaction creating that light. It has to be a LARGE object bigger than the entire planet earth to be seen as far as 5000 light years distant.
Finally, back in 2000 something odd BC, Constellations of stars were named and placed. This is why we can say constellations, because the stars are always appearing in the same place at the same brightness for thousands apon thousands of years. Then in 10-something AD Chineese guys see one star which has always been there for as long as they remember, suddenly get really really bright for a few weeks. Then it goes dim again and then dissapears totally from the observable sky.
when Gallileo invents the telescope, people can see things in the sky better. It works on an extended principal of what I am using to read my own computer screen today, that is Glass bends light and can focus and magnify it so you can see better. Thank god it does cos otherwise I'd be horribly short-sighted and have no chance in hell of ever driving around in my car safely.
So using a modified group of lenses, people look at the sky with massive 'glasses' which help them see small things in the sky like dim stars far away. What do they see in the sky where those Chineese guys saw a couple thousand years ago?
something like this:
The nebula is as large as 130 solar systems, but, at its distance of
18,000 light-years, it appears only as big as a dime viewed a mile away.
The Stingray is located in the direction of the southern constellation
Ara (the Altar).
The colors shown are actual colors emitted by nitrogen (red), oxygen
(green), and hydrogen (blue).
Tjosi,
Look up spectroscopy.
You really should learn a bit about astronomy before you make childish assertions. Else, continue to see the world however you choose. It really makes no difference to me either way....
Cheers
The thread starter did not reply? Gone on vacation?
It’s not about aliens or nukes, it’s about people like your selves giving explanation about phenomena that happen many light years away, and trying to convince people that’s all factual not just theory.
It's not about Theory or Fact, It's about the fact that what you see is true weather it is within reach of your hands, or across the block, or overhead at 35,000ft in orbit around Neptune, or 50,000 light years away.
Distance does not change the reality of things. A star burning 50,000 light years away is just as real as the one we orbit. It's just further away.
I am just as real as your next door neighbour, even though I live in Australia.
tjsosi,
you have failed to acknowledge, understand, or appreciate the distinctive importance of theory in science. To repeat - theory is as good as it gets. In science we are always prepared to discard any theory when an observation demonstrates that it is invalid. Many theories have been confirmed by so many observations that scientists 'know' that they are 'facts'. Yet they remain rightly cautious, ready to abandon these theories if the observations speak against them.
Our theories on supernovae are very well founded by observation. They are as close to factual as it is possible to get in science. As William said, you would be well advised to learn some science before making a public idiot of yourself. However, if you wish to appear as an uneducated, self-opinionated moron, that is your choice and your right. Just don't expect me to offer sympathy or consolation for your obdurate pig ignoarance.
tjosi...
Instead of just bashing well-supported facts, why don't you try to come up with an explanation of your own? A good scientist tries to find another theory to explain a certain phenomenon instead of just disagreeing with it.
| « a speed of light question???? | lava planet » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
