Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

A star exploded 11.5 million years ago

profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
And we just saw it last night.

http://blogs.discovery.com/inscider/2014/01/a-star-just-exploded-next-door-and-its-a-huge-deal.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1

Apparently 11.5 million light years is next door.

Click for larger image


Click for larger image
Jan 23 2014 3:01PM
228 69
profile picture
Miomo
Posts: 4302 - Karma: 14,133
Wow. God's amazing, huh?
Jan 23 2014 3:08PM
32 7
profile picture
Jalwan
Posts: 11 - Karma: 32
can never get my head round stuff like this, like if there was life on a star somewhere and they could see earth they could be looking at dinosaurs or some shit
Jan 23 2014 3:09PM
9 0
profile picture
.AR6rider.
Posts: 15976 - Karma: 8,799
Decent attempt. 4/10
Jan 23 2014 3:12PM
19 8
profile picture
gyarados
Posts: 1186 - Karma: 399
4/20
Jan 23 2014 3:15PM
42 2
profile picture
LoathesRaisins
Posts: 3612 - Karma: 4,735
4/30
Jan 23 2014 3:16PM
2 37
profile picture
CaptainObvious.
Posts: 5712 - Karma: 20,638
8/60
Jan 23 2014 3:20PM
24 2
profile picture
Bateman
Posts: 8591 - Karma: 8,600
So techniqually if we could travel super fast, say, the speed of light it would be like time travel?
Jan 23 2014 3:23PM
4 3
profile picture
JAHpow
Posts: 7282 - Karma: 17,176
No, if you traveled to M82 at the speed of light you would just get there 12 million years from now
Jan 23 2014 3:28PM
6 0
profile picture
JAHpow
Posts: 7282 - Karma: 17,176
But if you looked back at earth once you arrived you would see earth at the day you left. That's still not really time travel though.
Jan 23 2014 3:32PM
6 0
profile picture
Bateman
Posts: 8591 - Karma: 8,600
It kindof is?^
Jan 23 2014 3:38PM
1 0
profile picture
zard_gawd
Posts: 254 - Karma: 329
Actually if you traveled at near the speed of light for some time then returned back to where you left you would realize you were much further into the future than you would have been had you not traveled
Jan 23 2014 3:44PM
1 0
profile picture
JAHpow
Posts: 7282 - Karma: 17,176
It's not time travel, it's physics.

You're not going back in time to view the earth. You're just viewing, for the lack of a better term, old light.
Jan 23 2014 3:45PM
2 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
No but time dilation would occur. Time dilation explained:

Jan 23 2014 3:46PM
1 0
profile picture
Randy_Quench
Posts: 5447 - Karma: 4,343
Click for larger image
Jan 23 2014 3:52PM
13 0
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
impending chicken
Jan 23 2014 4:31PM
12 0
profile picture
Elg
Posts: 2998 - Karma: 3,880
What if you were traveling at the speed of light, and then turned on your headlights?
Jan 23 2014 4:45PM
6 0
profile picture
Miomo
Posts: 4302 - Karma: 14,133
Time would be slowed down for you, so the light would still be moving the speed of light relative to you.
Jan 23 2014 4:51PM
2 0
profile picture
steezburgereddie
Posts: 1059 - Karma: 1,945
some sneaky advertising in that video
Jan 23 2014 5:48PM
0 0
profile picture
GayWolf420
Posts: 37387 - Karma: 120,092
space is fucking tight
Jan 23 2014 5:53PM
3 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51642 - Karma: 162,227
When people try to tell me God doesn't exist I'm like miracles bro

Click for larger image


Jan 23 2014 5:57PM
12 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
no. if you travelled to M82 at the speed of light, which you can't unless you are massless and in empty space, you would reach M82 in an instant. If you had enough energy to travel there at like 0.9999999% the speed of light, the trip would not take you much time at all.
Jan 23 2014 6:45PM
2 3
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
99.99999999...%
or 0.9999999...c

not 0.9999999% though haha, that would be a long-ass trip.
Jan 23 2014 6:47PM
2 1
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
Kind of.
As you approach the speed of light time slows down. So hypothetically, if you are to travel at the speed of light, time would stop moving.
Jan 23 2014 6:50PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Time doesn't exist.............. clocks do.
Jan 23 2014 6:51PM
1 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
wait, don't the measurements made by clocks define time?
Jan 23 2014 6:56PM
1 1
profile picture
spliff.Life
Posts: 7847 - Karma: 1,549
you should read yourself up on some relativity, idk if youre trolling or not though

but no reverse time travel is possible, its not plausible. Think about loading a gun and then traveling back in time with the loaded gun and killing yourself with the gun you loaded before the back in time you has even started to load the gun, its paradoxical, but you could go travel at a certain high speed and come back after say only 1 week has past for you but 20 years has passed on earth
Jan 23 2014 7:24PM
1 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
but earth is moving away from you at the same speed as you are moving away from it. So when you come back, why would more time have passed on earth than for you?
Jan 23 2014 7:40PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Time certainly exists, clocks are just an instrument used to measure it in hours. Just like temperature is a real thing and thermometers are used to measure it in degrees (in most cases).
Jan 23 2014 7:40PM
1 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
why are you so sure about this?

What is temperature. Is it a physical thing?
Jan 23 2014 7:52PM
2 0
profile picture
elinde
Posts: 1467 - Karma: 3,053
Just a question, how does that make sense if it took the light from M82 11.5 million years to get here?
Jan 23 2014 7:54PM
0 0
profile picture
spliff.Life
Posts: 7847 - Karma: 1,549
Temperature:
the degree or intensity of heat present in a substance or object, esp. as expressed according to a comparative scale and shown by a thermometer or perceived by touch.

Temperature is the measure of thermal energy, but is completely arbitrary, for us dependent on our local environment. Im sure something living nearer to a star wouldnt have made our 0 celcius a major mark in their scale, maybe their zero is where some other substance than water solidifies, like rock
Jan 23 2014 8:01PM
1 0
profile picture
Blurst
Posts: 13577 - Karma: 10,169
good call.
Jan 23 2014 8:03PM
4 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
so you have given a physical explanation for the thing you call temperature. You say temperature is a measure of the thermal energy of an object.

what is time a measure of then?

Jan 23 2014 8:23PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Well you seem to be so sure about this so why don't you explain why I'm wrong.
Jan 23 2014 8:25PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
Wait. You said time "certainly exists". I just asked a bunch of questions. It seems like you are the one who is so sure about things.

Truth is I have no idea. Time is something that I can measure with a clock. Does that make it a real thing? I dunno. Is it even a question worth asking?
Jan 23 2014 8:37PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
uh. well I guess what I said is slightly misleading, really it is a meaningless question to ask how much "time" was experienced by a photon. Basically photos move on null lines, so the four-velocity cannot be defined. Sp proper time (or proper relative motion) can not be defined for a photon.

If you take the kindergarden approach though and just look at time dilation, then you can say that the photon travels here instantly. Like the trip at 99.9999% the speed of light will take 5 seconds, the trip at 99.99999999999% will take 1, etc, and the limiting case is 0 seconds.
Jan 23 2014 8:47PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
The way in witch you asked them made it seem as though you knew the answer yourself. Though, frankly I don't know wether what I said is true or if it is just a armature speculation.
Jan 23 2014 9:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Halo1junkie
Posts: 202 - Karma: 435
Technically it happened last night, from our frame of reference. Yeah, 11.5 million light years away, it happened 11.5 million years ago. Welcome to spacetime science
Jan 23 2014 10:40PM
1 0
profile picture
Scotty_B
Posts: 287 - Karma: 423
you have to consider this all hypothetically but yes.

It's not really like time travel more like teleporting, HOWEVER

If we could travel faster than the speed of light then time travel might be possible but seeing as the speed of light is the fastest thing we have measured it isn't really possible to go faster.

That's my take on it anyways.
Jan 23 2014 11:15PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
From our frame of reference, it happened 11.5 million years ago. It was just in our elsewhere until the light cone from the supernova overlapped with the light cone of the observation event. After this, the event became part of our past.

I'm not sure if I said that very well. It's been awhile since I did any relativity (other than like everyday stuff). Basically even with relativity we can still talk about the past and future in an invariant manner. It's just that each event in spacetime has its own past and its own future, and its own elsewhere. All observers of an event will agree on what the past and future of an event is though.
Jan 23 2014 11:27PM
1 0
profile picture
BlakeLively
Posts: 663 - Karma: 656
lol at NS trying to discuss special relativity
Jan 24 2014 12:06AM
1 2
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
why?
Jan 24 2014 1:45AM
0 0
profile picture
Halo1junkie
Posts: 202 - Karma: 435
Different observers of events can actually disagree on the order that events happen in. Also could you explain what you mean better? It was my understanding that if you are separated by space you are also separated by time. Thats spacetime. For this reason the quasars and very far away objects still exist, to us, although the no longer exist at their own location
Jan 24 2014 5:13AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
you wouldnt feel that way though if you were going at least something like 0.99c or something.

from earth, it would still take over 12 million years. but on the spaceship, it would "only" feel like:

@0.9c : 5.23 million years
@0.95c : 3.75 million years
@0.99c : 1.69 million years
@0.9999c : 169,701 years
@0.999999999c : 536 years

and finally, to be able to visit that galaxy within the crews lifetime:

@0.999999999999c : 16.97 years


small fun fact i hope i get right. this stuff always twist my head. a 200-m-spaceship going @0.999999999c would look from earth like it is shorter than one cm, 0.008944 m to be exact.
Jan 24 2014 5:59AM
4 0
profile picture
sNaubi
Posts: 1633 - Karma: 2,357


Jan 24 2014 7:15AM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
i always thought about it like if you had a time machine, and you set it to the current moment, just like in australia.

thats still time travel to me. in fact, a ride in a bus is to some degree time travel, since time travel should be called spacetime travel.

changing your position within space simply can be achieved over the time dimension.


although i cant grasp some thing i read that time is equivalent to either axis of space and you can change them. so in like, that its not a "special dimension". there are four dimensions of spacetime and apparently (although i am not sure), it is just that we give them the names x,y,z and time.
Jan 24 2014 8:15AM
0 0
profile picture
TheClap.
Posts: 21664 - Karma: 4,140
Neat-O
Jan 24 2014 9:30AM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
I wasn't saying every observer had to agree on simultaneity
Jan 24 2014 10:22AM
0 0
profile picture
BigScaryLarry
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 2,732
saw too much chicken and decided not to waste my time reading his posts. onto the next thread
Jan 24 2014 10:50AM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
good. GTFO.
Jan 24 2014 10:54AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)