belovelife Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/19/breaking-possible-supernova-in-nearby-spiral-m95/ sounds cool so far, i want to learn more, we need to have a discussion on this Quote
Lancewen Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 http://blogs.discove...rby-spiral-m95/ sounds cool so far, i want to learn more, we need to have a discussion on this What exactly are you wanting to talk about? Supernovas are a fairly well known event, but there's a lot of information to pick and choose from. But if I was to guess, it's already happened, and the light from it is well on it's way to reaching us and the distance between it and us renders it safe for our viewing pleasure. Quote
belovelife Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 curious, the video states that it is a relatively new star i would like to search for the original star ( as was stated) the figure out if it was a new star, or an old one, all the data then chat about it (considering my theory it would be an old star, of the oldest in the galaxy) Quote
Lancewen Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 curious, the video states that it is a relatively new star i would like to search for the original star ( as was stated) the figure out if it was a new star, or an old one, all the data then chat about it (considering my theory it would be an old star, of the oldest in the galaxy) If you want to talk about a star going supernova, by definition it won't be an old star. Any star large enough to become a supernova will usually burn through all it's fuel (hydrogen & helium) within just a few billion years. The general rule is the larger a star starts out the faster it will burn itself into a super or hyper-nova. Our sun is not large enough to become a supernova and it will burn for 10 to 12 billion years. Smaller red stars can last 30 billion or more years, So if you want to look for the oldest stars they will be small and not very bright. Quote
Lancewen Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 If you want to talk about a star going supernova, by definition it won't be an old star. Any star large enough to become a supernova will usually burn through all it's fuel (hydrogen & helium) within just a few billion years. The general rule is the larger a star starts out the faster it will burn itself into a super or hyper-nova. Our sun is not large enough to become a supernova and it will burn for 10 to 12 billion years. Smaller red stars can last 30 billion or more years, So if you want to look for the oldest stars they will be small and not very bright. I just wanted to add to this comment. It's a good thing big stars don't take to long to go supernova. They are responsible for creating heavy elements which allow for the formation of rocky planets. There are no rocky planets in orbit around any first generation stars, and maybe hit or miss around second generation stars. I believe our sun is at least a third generation star, because of all the elements that make up our planet. So when you think about it, it's probably not a good idea to look for life in any systems that do not at least have a second or third generation star. Quote
Lancewen Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 So if you want to look for the oldest stars they will be small and not very bright. In a nutshell yes. We know our sun has about a 10 to 12 billion year life, so for the very first stars to still be around, they would need to be smaller than our sun. Assuming scientists have the age of our universe correct. Quote
JMJones0424 Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 meh, no need to respond to spammers Quote
Lancewen Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 meh, no need to respond to spammers I thought about that, but he had 10 posts, and most spammers don't last that long. Also, I've fielded my share of fairly lame posts before so I didn't think it was that far out of context. Quote
Buffy Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 I thought about that, but he had 10 posts, and most spammers don't last that long. Also, I've fielded my share of fairly lame posts before so I didn't think it was that far out of context. Spammers are getting smarter. But they're still worth thwacking. The true crimefighter always carries everything he needs in his utility belt, Robin, :phones:Buffy Quote
Lancewen Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Spammers are getting smarter. But they're still worth thwacking. The true crimefighter always carries everything he needs in his utility belt, Robin, :phones:Buffy Okay, I'll take my lashes for letting that slip by me. Next spammer gets his. Edited August 29, 2012 by arKane JMJones0424 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.