Comments on: Fireworks and pinwheels

By: Irishman

Irishman — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:47:00 +0000

BB Said:
>BAD ASTRONOMY!
>This star blew up 100 million years ago, not in 2002

A legitimate quibble buried in a matter of perspective. When discussing astronomical events, do we describe the the timeframes based upon when we see them occur, or when the signal was sent? From our perspective, the star blew up in 2002 – that is when we saw it occur. Okay, the light of the explosion didn’t reach us until 2002, but occurred some long time before. Drat!

By: Maurizio Morabito

Maurizio Morabito — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:10:39 +0000

25 octillions of a megaton, i.e. 2.5E40 grams of TNT…comes out as a cube of explosive with a side of 250 million kilometers, right?

By: jess tauber

jess tauber — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:17:17 +0000

INCOMING MESSIAHGE FROM GALACTIC JIHAD

Not to open can of wormholes- Gavin needs to learn that there are no absolute reference frames- ONLY ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION TO WORD OF DIRAC!

Know that size is relative- maybe universe expansion is your ego (and atomic structure, among other things…) SHRINKING. You would never be able to tell, because all your rulers are shrinking as well, whereas OUR RULER (BLESSED BE THE RULER OF CREATION) NEVER SHRINK. BIG BANG RADIATION didn’t red shift- you blue shifted, because YOU ARE SO SMALL, AND SO SAD!

DO YOU SEE ME??? I AM CRUSHING YOUR HEAD!!!

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:38:34 +0000

I don’t think it is that pretty. Compared to say Hyakutake on an icy moonless night.

By: Gavin Flower

Gavin Flower — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:48:37 +0000

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone competent in astrophysics here (or relevant disciplines) has had a critical look at Alexander Mayer’s ideas about “Gravitational Transverse Redshift” and the implication that the red shift of distant galaxies therefore do not imply a “Big Bang”.

I have looked at his two pdf files of lecture notes – his ideas appear reasonable to me. He seems to neatly explain the cosmic background radiation as well.

By: Laguna2

Laguna2 — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:12:34 +0000

Thank you for my new Desktop background.
That pic is beautiful.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:55:26 +0000

Thanks, BA, for another superb pic. And some staggeringly big numbers to go with it.

By: moonflake

moonflake — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:03:58 +0000

hey, snap! i studied CVs too. And, to my supervisor’s woe, also found them terminally boring. This was made even worse by the fact that my supervisor was Brian Warner, who literally wrote the book on the subject. Maybe it was the pressure, but now that i’ve graduated and i don’t do astronomy anymore, it just seems so much more fun! I can look at something like this and go ‘Neat!’ instead of ‘Hmm, am I going to get quizzed on this at tea tomorrow?’

By: TJ

TJ — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:47:33 +0000

Well put ‘corgi! It was my grandfather giving me my first telescope that got me interested in astronomy, but it’s photos like this that keep me enraptured by it.

I see something like this and immediately start subdividing the galaxy into sections, solar systems, planets, moons…then I wonder: How many of these stars have planets? How many have life? Intelligent life? What form is it? Do they resemble us or are they completely different?

Is there someone looking at our galaxy and wondering the same thing?

It’s so fun to think about!

By: Cindy

Cindy — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:37:51 +0000

The same image is on today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day website. It’s really cool.

When I was in grad school I studied cataclysmic variables (which is the binary systems that produce Type Ia supernovae) and felt that it was a very unsexy topic compared to supernovae and cosmology. I called it “granny nightgown” science. Glad to see that the cataclysmic variables are becoming a little more sexy now so we can better understand the Type Ia supernovae.

By: supercorgi

supercorgi — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:30:02 +0000

Absolutely beautiful. Such things raise a sense of awe in my completely atheistic, non-spiritual, black, little heart. How could people think that understanding the universe and how it works is detrimental to an appreciation of beauty? Oh, and thanks for the great new wallpaper for my computer screen!

By: Carlos Correia

Carlos Correia — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:19:31 +0000

Phil, thanks for this clear and profound post.
Another one for my archives.

You are like the Port wine – the original, the portuguese one, not the one you try to produce/fake in California…:)
As you get older, you get better!

Jess Tauber … my magnificent supreme being, thanks for making me laugh
like hell. Please, have mercy on us… as we donÂ´t know what we are doing.

By: Bourgeois Nerd

Bourgeois Nerd — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:02:40 +0000

About Type 1a supernovae: do they create the heavy elements like other supernovae (Type 1b? Type 2?)?

By: jess tauber

jess tauber — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:49:11 +0000

AHA! Kevin from NYC does not know! WE HAVE REVERSED THE CHARGES and so time goes other way! You are so electroweak. WE are MAGNETOSTRONG, and have monopoly on concept. Dirac is our Prophet. We have used 4th family fermions and super double secret probation 3/2 spin fundamental particles to reach out to you from hidden base inside supermassive black hole in Seyfert Galaxy! WE FIRE DWARF GALAXY AT YOU stupid people in “Milky Way” to force you pay attention but you don’t listen!

We feed you gas at hyperinflationary price, hope you stop taking from everyone. BUT THEN YOU GO STEAL ALL RED DWARFS from smaller neighbors! HAVE YOU NO BRANES AT ALL?

Not to worry- soon you will all be Hubbled!

HE WHO HAS NO QUANTUM SIGNATURE

By: Kevin from NYC

Kevin from NYC — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:30:31 +0000

“you must have your head cut and your eyes put out, in that order.”

That is so totally incorrect. You must first put out the eyes and then cut the head off…..idiot!

By: Caspar

Caspar — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:41:59 +0000

@Thomas Siefert: I’d rather NOT have the Mythbuster prove that (in)correct. Just let them fiddle around with the usual garden variety earth physics. Letting them fiddle with a ‘ginormous’ H-bomb… No thank you!

By: kyuzalt

kyuzalt — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:37:40 +0000

woooooooÂ¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡Â¡

The universe is beutiful everywhere as soon as I turn my head.

By: RobW

RobW — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:37:04 +0000

25 octillion Megatons…

WOW, Just Wow.

That’s big…

By: Tara Mobley

Tara Mobley — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:05:49 +0000

And we’re back to business. The absolute beauty of the cosmos, and the science that shows that it’s not just pretty, it’s fascinating too. It’s nice to see it again.

By: Rich Fraser

Rich Fraser — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:40:48 +0000

Ahhh…back to the business of why I visit this blog to begin with; fine science. A refreshing break indeed from all of the kerfuffery of the last few days.

By: Clark Bartram

Clark Bartram — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:13:29 +0000

I wonder how the astrologists will spin(no pun intended) the effects of a new galaxy full of planets and stars on our lives here on earth. I wonder if I will meet an interesting stranger tomorrow or will the supernova cause me to have a conflict at work. I would love to get your take on my post on what astrologers had to say about the recently discovered new planet(http://theclayexperience.blogspot.com/2006/01/science-of-astrology-whats-next.html). I just found your blog and have enjoyed it greatly. I also learned a lot from your book as well. Mostly I learned that I didn’t know much about astronomy.

By: John B. Sandlin

John B. Sandlin — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:07:37 +0000

So, if I understand correctly, the things nearer to us are red shifted a little more than they ought to be based on how fast it appears things far away are red shifted. My question: what does the expansion curve look like? Not that I’d actually understand the math for any longer than it takes to explain it.

jbs

By: jess tauber

jess tauber — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:09:12 +0000

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE BY REPRODUCING A GRAVEN IMAGE OF ONE OF HIS CREATIONS! It is clear to me that you must have your head cut and your eyes put out, in that order. After that you will be silenced! You have offended us, and so we will kill you. If you resist our vengeance, we will kill you again! All of your blog entries will be killed, and later censored!

It is obvious that if Man were meant to see into the Heavens, the Creator would have put high-aperture telescopes into his head instead of eyes! So-called Dark Matter is invisible because the Creator wants it that way- WOE UNTO YOU for attempting to characterize it. And it is clear that accelerating expansion of the Universe is its attempt to avoid your blasphemous prying eyes!

AND SO WE WARN YOU- you must stop this immediately, or the Committee for the Protection of Ancient Unexamined, Unexaminable, and Unquestionable Received Viewpoints (CPAUUURV), as the only legitimate recognized authority to whom one may appeal, MUST TAKE EXCESSIVELY DISPROPORTIONATE RETALIATORY ACTION!

Governments of the world have recognized the need for moderation, conciliation, and compromise. YOU MUST COMPROMISE BY SUBMITTING UTTERLY! We will send you a new administration-sanctioned overseer immediately, who will instruct your children (if any) in the proper way.

YOU SHOULD BE SLEEPING instead of staying up at night, against the NATURAL ORDER!

THINK ON THIS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE- we give you only 45 billion years to respond…….

With Fondest Hopes of Your Redemption
ONE WHOSE NAME IS NEVER UTTERED
(at least in polite company!)

By: BB

BB — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:55:41 +0000

BAD ASTRONOMY!

This star blew up 100 million years ago, not in 2002

By: Steve Sutton

Steve Sutton — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:53:02 +0000

Nice. The fact that we can look back in time and see objects as they appeared over a million years ago always gives me chills. Such far-away objects are also proof against the young-Universe idea.