T Coronae Borealis

barf

barf

Shooter of guns, petter of dogs
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
4,687
Location
Candler
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Why does every article about this, including the NASA article, seem to be written by a retard? Or am I the retard?

This Nova is 3000 light years away. And every article says the event will again happen soon, and the last time it erupted was 1946. Not one article mentions how light years work.

It will have happened 3000 years before we see it.

www.scientificamerican.com

This Dead Star Flares to Life Every 80 Years. Your Only Chance to See It Will Come Any Day Now

A nova called T Coronae Borealis spectacularly erupts every 80 years. Your only chance to see it will come any day now
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

Am I wrong?
 
I think the article is saying both. It reoccurs every 80 years and is also 3000 light years away. Ignoring an expanding universe and all that, if we were to see the nova today, it would have occurred 3000 years ago and taken that long to reach us.

The nova seen 80 years ago would have been emitted 3080 years ago.

The nova seen 80 years from now would have been emitted 2920 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Frack N Cylons said:
I think the article is saying both. It reoccurs every 80 years and is also 3000 light years away. Ignoring an expanding universe and all that, if we were to see the nova today, it would have occurred 3000 years ago and taken that long to reach us.

The nova seen 80 years ago would have been emitted 3080 years ago.

The nova seen 80 years from now would have been emitted 2920 years ago.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in any article I’ve read explains it like that. It literally says “it’s gonna erupt any day now”, as if we are awaiting the eruption. Not waiting to see the eruption from 3000 years ago.

Someone at work, who owns a telescope, literally thought we were going to see it explode in real time. I understand that 15 years ago it would be understood that it’s 3000 years late. But not today.
 
Last edited:
I would say it’s just assumed that the reader understands that astronomical events happen far away and that the speed of light is a thing. I’m no journalist, but it seems like it would be clunky to write otherwise.

I don’t follow your second paragraph.
 
Frack N Cylons said:
I would say it’s just assumed that the reader understands that astronomical events happen far away and that the speed of light is a thing. I’m no journalist, but it seems like it would be clunky to write otherwise.

I don’t follow your second paragraph.
Click to expand...

You give people too much credit.

What second paragraph?

The article literally says when it erupts we will see it.


“T CrB last erupted in 1946, and its behavior suggests that its next paroxysm is due any moment between now and September. When this occurs, T CrB will become visible to the naked eye as a temporary jewel in its constellation’s stelliferous crown.”
 
Last edited:
Frack N Cylons said:
I would say it’s just assumed that the reader understands that astronomical events happen far away and that the speed of light is a thing. I’m no journalist, but it seems like it would be clunky to write otherwise.
Click to expand...
when the movie WANTED came out, i had a college educated person ask me if you could really curve bullets by twisting your wrist.
that was 20 years ago, long before school science classes started teaching about how some men have periods, and some women have penises.

and it wouldn't be clunky at all. toss in a blurb about us seeing 3000 years "into the past' and then write about how it was seen 80 years ago and we should see it again soon. they did used to write about this stuff all the time.
Probably a poorly written AI report that was edited by somebody who didn't understand the topic but had a deadline and a word count target.
 
In the good news/bad news department, if a gamma ray burst happened in the constellation Vega today, it would take 25 years to reach Earth. It's possible all life on Earth would be destroyed. I'm almost 70 years old, so I'll probably be dead anyway by then. Goodbye, suckers!
 
I find it absolutely amazing we have the technology to see 3000 light years away but can't get a good pic of sasquatch or even a thief standing in front of a camera!

For those that don't know 1 light year is equal to about 6 trillion miles.
 
heavydoc said:
I find it absolutely amazing we have the technology to see 3000 light years away but can't get a good pic of sasquatch or even a thief standing in front of a camera!

For those that don't know 1 light year is equal to about 6 trillion miles.
Click to expand...

I used to dabble in amateur astronomy, and owned nice telescopes over the years. On one very clear and still morning, an hour or two before dawn, I was able to make out a moon shadow transit across the face of Jupiter with my 14" Discovery Reflector. But it was a remarkably clear, transparent and still sky which is rare for us.

I've heard the description of using an earth-bound telescope to be like looking at a nickel coin in the bottom of a swimming pool. The Hubble and Webb telescopes don't have that kind of disadvantage now, being above the atmosphere. But the galaxy is filled with areas of dust and gas, and sometimes fine details are hidden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom