Galaxies Observed May Not Exist From Light-Years

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Galaxies Observed May Not Exist From Light-Years
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
guest-researcher

Send message
Joined: 9 May 14
Posts: 31
Credit: 652,751
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1690466 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 13:03:33 UTC

How do scientists know the stars and galaxies they observe exist today? Stars are sending light from billions of years ago when observed.
ID: 1690466 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,394,305
RAC: 10,752
Belgium
Message 1690489 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 14:08:39 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jun 2015, 14:09:38 UTC

The light we see from Betelgeuze for instance has to travel 650 years to reach us. The star might as well have become a supernova by now. So we don't know the stars we see today, still exist. The light of the stars exist for us because we can see it with our own eyes but the material body may have died by the time we see it.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1690489 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 1
Sweden
Message 1690500 - Posted: 12 Jun 2015, 14:23:43 UTC - in response to Message 1690489.  

The light we see from Betelgeuze for instance has to travel 650 years to reach us. The star might as well have become a supernova by now. So we don't know the stars we see today, still exist. The light of the stars exist for us because we can see it with our own eyes but the material body may have died by the time we see it.

I was also thinking of Betelgeuze Julie:)
http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/betelgeuse-will-explode-someday
ID: 1690500 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40072
Credit: 35,104,552
RAC: 66,155
United Kingdom
Message 1690747 - Posted: 13 Jun 2015, 9:17:19 UTC

The lifecycle of stars takes millions or billions of years, nothing will have changed in 650 years!


ID: 1690747 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 1
Sweden
Message 1690777 - Posted: 13 Jun 2015, 12:27:21 UTC - in response to Message 1690747.  

The lifecycle of stars takes millions or billions of years, nothing will have changed in 650 years!

Betelgeuze has changed a lot since it was first discovered!
Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, so its diameter changes with time.
Even mass!
Thats the first sign of a dying star.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOq7Z10v94w
The fate of Betelgeuse depends on its initial mass—a critical factor which is not well understood.[89] Since most investigators posit a mass greater than 10 M☉, the most likely scenario is that the supergiant will continue to burn and fuse elements until its core collapses, at which point Betelgeuse will explode as a supernova, leaving behind a neutron star remnant about 20 km in diameter.[116] As of 2014, theoretical calculations for a non-rotating star suggest Betelgeuse has developed a 3–4 M☉ carbon-oxygen core which is being enlarged by deposition of fusion products from the surrounding helium shell at about a fifth of the star's radius. It will explode as a type II supernova within 100000 years after going through carbon, neon, oxygen, and silicon burning in the core. The remnant would be a neutron star around 1.5 M☉. The estimated age for the red supergiant is between 8 and 8.5 million years and its initial mass was 20+5
−3 M☉.[116] The exact mass, rotation rate, and mass loss are critical to Betelgeuse's fate; stellar evolution models show that initially rotating stars more massive than about 18 M☉ do not explode as supernovae while they are red supergiants. Instead they lose all their outer hydrogen to become yellow hypergiants, luminous blue variables, or even Wolf-Rayet stars before producing a type II-L, IIb or Ib/c supernova
ID: 1690777 · Report as offensive
Odysseus
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 1807
Credit: 5,103,494
RAC: 1,343
Canada
Message 1692949 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 6:06:28 UTC

In general the life-cycle of stars has an inverse relation with their mass, with a fairly large exponent (cubic?). While red dwarfs can burn for hundreds of billions of years, maybe trillions, the lifespan of the largest stars is only in the hundreds of thousands; their enormous luminosity implies a prodigious consumption of fuel, which can’t be sustained for long.
ID: 1692949 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,556
RAC: 143
United States
Message 1692964 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 6:40:50 UTC - in response to Message 1690747.  

The lifecycle of stars takes millions or billions of years, nothing will have changed in 650 years!



In any given 600 years quite a few stars will have reached the end of their lives, also during that same 600 years many new stars will have started up.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1692964 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40072
Credit: 35,104,552
RAC: 66,155
United Kingdom
Message 1692978 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 7:21:41 UTC

The lifecycle of stars takes millions or billions of years, nothing will have changed in 650 years!

That statement was based upon what we can observe of the known universe. What we see in the sky today was how it was Billions of years ago when the light started on it's journey to us. Looking at the sky back in 1365 it wouldn't look much different than it does today, other than the constellations being in different places.

In any given 600 years quite a few stars will have reached the end of their lives, also during that same 600 years many new stars will have started up.

If we assume that the universe is infinite, or that we are beginning to see further away all the time with modern technology, then yes given an infinite number of stars, some will have died and been born in 600 years. Its just that we wont know about it! It is of necessity theoretical.
ID: 1692978 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,394,305
RAC: 10,752
Belgium
Message 1693023 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 9:00:18 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jun 2015, 9:04:25 UTC

I always thought the first stars in the Universe were huge (approximately 100 times the size of our Sun, or even larger) and then I find this article.

http://www.space.com/13572-early-stars-universe-massive.html
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1693023 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40072
Credit: 35,104,552
RAC: 66,155
United Kingdom
Message 1693034 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 9:18:50 UTC

That article was November 2011 and based on a computer simulation. Is there any more later information on that? The results were interesting to say the least.
ID: 1693034 · Report as offensive
KLiKProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1290
Credit: 9,172,086
RAC: 17,866
Croatia
Message 1693035 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 9:32:05 UTC - in response to Message 1690489.  

The light we see from Betelgeuze for instance has to travel 650 years to reach us. The star might as well have become a supernova by now. So we don't know the stars we see today, still exist. The light of the stars exist for us because we can see it with our own eyes but the material body may have died by the time we see it.

So here is some little texts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Betelgeuse#Approaching_supernova

So we wait 4 a sudden rush of neutrinos, as an alert...& then watch the Fireworks of Supernova in Space!

This also will give a glimpse if Neutrino is FTL or STL...all indications say it's STL! ;)

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1693035 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,394,305
RAC: 10,752
Belgium
Message 1693039 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 9:59:49 UTC - in response to Message 1693034.  
Last modified: 18 Jun 2015, 10:08:57 UTC

That article was November 2011 and based on a computer simulation. Is there any more later information on that? The results were interesting to say the least.


Couldn't find anything besides that. People should really be provided with the correct information. I'm all confuddled now. Here's an interesting link from the JWST page, no remarks on the sizes of the first stars though. The JWST will possibly answer some of our inquiries on this subject.

http://jwst.nasa.gov/firstlight.html
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1693039 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,556
RAC: 143
United States
Message 1693096 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 14:11:24 UTC

I have finally come to accept that terms like today and now don't have much if any meaning when trying to comprehend the universe.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1693096 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 1
Sweden
Message 1693111 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 14:47:43 UTC - in response to Message 1693096.  
Last modified: 18 Jun 2015, 14:52:48 UTC

I have finally come to accept that terms like today and now don't have much if any meaning when trying to comprehend the universe.

So do I.
Let us say we could make a map of our universe today.
It would look (I think) much different than the Hubbles images does.

And what is time or what time is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91RHD0RSRxY
ID: 1693111 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,394,305
RAC: 10,752
Belgium
Message 1693122 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 15:20:23 UTC - in response to Message 1693096.  
Last modified: 18 Jun 2015, 15:25:06 UTC

I have finally come to accept that terms like today and now don't have much if any meaning when trying to comprehend the universe.


We're making a mess out of it, Bob. Too many theories from too many different individuals. We should've built further on the theories of the basic thinkers in my opinion. Scientists are creating new theories like they change underpants these days.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1693122 · Report as offensive
Profile tullioProject Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6300
Credit: 1,686,929
RAC: 1,592
Italy
Message 1693126 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 15:25:15 UTC - in response to Message 1693023.  

A network of big telescopes has discovered a very brilliant and very far galaxy with very massive Population III stars. I found this news on theregister.co.uk and it had a link to the Astrophysical Journal I could not open. But it must still be in print. Now scientific news (or their abstracts) go online even before being printed, a very bad habit in my opinion.
Tullio
ID: 1693126 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,394,305
RAC: 10,752
Belgium
Message 1693128 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 15:27:09 UTC - in response to Message 1693126.  

A network of big telescopes has discovered a very brilliant and very far galaxy with very massive Population III stars. I found this news on theregister.co.uk and it had a link to the Astrophysical Journal I could not open. But it must still be in print. Now scientific news (or their abstracts) go online even before being printed, a very bad habit in my opinion.
Tullio


And very confusing as well for us, outsiders.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1693128 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40072
Credit: 35,104,552
RAC: 66,155
United Kingdom
Message 1693129 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 15:29:41 UTC

Scientists are creating new theories like they change underpants these days.

If PhD's and research scientists don't produce at least 2 learned papers each year then they get sidelined by the scientific community, and not shortlisted for jobs. It is also fair to say that modern science and technology keeps turning up new evidence that requires evaluating and adding into the mix.
ID: 1693129 · Report as offensive
Profile tullioProject Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6300
Credit: 1,686,929
RAC: 1,592
Italy
Message 1693133 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 15:33:52 UTC - in response to Message 1693129.  
Last modified: 18 Jun 2015, 15:47:07 UTC

The galaxy name is CR7, a very strange name, because soccer fans identify it with Cristian Ronaldo, a soccer star.
Tullio
There is an article on the NYT but I cannot read it having filled my quota of 10 articles/month.
ID: 1693133 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,394,305
RAC: 10,752
Belgium
Message 1693139 - Posted: 18 Jun 2015, 15:50:22 UTC - in response to Message 1693129.  
Last modified: 18 Jun 2015, 15:57:35 UTC

Scientists are creating new theories like they change underpants these days.

If PhD's and research scientists don't produce at least 2 learned papers each year then they get sidelined by the scientific community, and not shortlisted for jobs. It is also fair to say that modern science and technology keeps turning up new evidence that requires evaluating and adding into the mix.


How can they calmly find their inspiration and create new ideas that way?? Didn't know slavery existed in the field of science as well... Pressure is never good, that's a fact.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1693139 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Galaxies Observed May Not Exist From Light-Years


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.