×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Supernova Seen In Nearby Galaxy M82

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the very-big-boom dept.

Space 125

The Bad Astronomer writes "A new and potentially bright supernova was just discovered in the nearby galaxy M82. This is a Type Ia supernova, the catastrophic explosion of a white dwarf. It appears to be on the rise, and may have been caught as much as two weeks before peak brightness. It's currently already brighter than magnitude 12, and may get to mag 8, easy to see in small telescopes. The galaxy is less than 12 million light years away, so this may become one of the best-studied supernovae in recent times. Type Ia supernovae are used to measure dark energy, so seeing one nearby is a huge boon to astronomy."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hope no one got hurt (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | about 10 months ago | (#46037515)

Just sayin'.....

Re:I hope no one got hurt (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46037587)

Just sayin'.....

It was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

And yes, many Bothans died to bring us this information.

It was a Trap!

Re:I hope no one got hurt (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 10 months ago | (#46041709)

Only 12 Million years ago, and the Galaxy is relatively close.

I wonder how many star systems got sterilized by the blast.

Re:I hope no one got hurt (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#46037913)

White dwarf? The inhabitants had long since resettled, if they knew about themselves.

The sad nature of the universe is that untold numbers of unique lifeforms have been summarily extinguished by the the deaths of their stars for billions of years.

Re:I hope no one got hurt (4, Interesting)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#46038809)

Supernovas can affect the biospheres of planets within eight parsecs [wikipedia.org]

Still, that's nothing compared to the hypothetical death tolls in active galaxies.

Re:I hope no one got hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46040841)

Based on this, you'd BETTER hope and PRAY that Sirius, only about 8 LY away never blows its top... We'd be toast...

Re:I hope no one got hurt (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 10 months ago | (#46041235)

Sirius is still nice and white, we've no problems there.

It's Arcturus you should worry about; it's already in its red giant phase.

Re:I hope no one got hurt (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#46041417)

But Arcturus is 36.7 light years distant--11.24 parsecs. We're safe. As long as the supernova occurs more than 8 parsecs away. the ozone layer won't be catastrophically damaged.

Obligatory XKCD: Another way to die in a supernova [xkcd.com]

Re:I hope no one got hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46043731)

It was not obligatory, but it was damned interesting.

Re:I hope no one got hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46041951)

All life is contingent upon nature. And nature is one tough broad!

Re:I hope no one got hurt (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#46042979)

no, zero lifeforms extinquished by the death of their own star, for stars kill their habitable planets long before dying.

getting extinguised by a nearby star of another system is possible

Re:I hope no one got hurt (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#46043411)

no, zero lifeforms extinquished by the death of their own star, for stars kill their habitable planets long before dying.

The supernova is just the final event in the very long process of a star's death.

It was on the rise... (-1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46037549)

12 million years ago.

I'm always stressing to people at our star parties the light you see is history. That which cast it forth is not there at the present and possibly no longer exists in the same condition.

Exploding stars, though, yeah, that's the stuff of excitement for some. Once they get tired of seeing the same ol' - same ol' Hubble extravaganzas.

Re:It was on the rise... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037619)

Since no information can travel faster than light, for all intents and purposes and discussions of causality it is happening right now. Since we are just entering its light cone, anything outside of it is inaccessible to us - and always will be.

Re:It was on the rise... (4, Informative)

Urkki (668283) | about 10 months ago | (#46038991)

Since no information can travel faster than light, for all intents and purposes and discussions of causality it is happening right now. Since we are just entering its light cone, anything outside of it is inaccessible to us - and always will be.

Well, if you argue that, you have to give up concept of distance, or concept of speed of light. From our frame of reference, light traveled certain distance at certain speed, and simple calculation will tell how long time it took.

Or to put it another way, when you receive reflection of light you sent to a mirror, neither sending nor reflecting happened when you received the reflection back. It is in fact possible to determine distance of mirror by knowing how long ago sending and reflecting happened.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46039429)

Well, if you argue that, you have to give up concept of distance, or concept of speed of light. From our frame of reference, light traveled certain distance at certain speed, and simple calculation will tell how long time it took.

Actually, if you want to be accurate: no, it is not a simple calculation, due to the metric expansion of space and all...

Re:It was on the rise... (3, Informative)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 10 months ago | (#46040527)

Over such distances the expansion of space is totally insignificant -- that's a large scale effect and is *only* active on large scales. Local structures are totally disconnected from it. (If the language doesn't sound intimidating, the expansion is a feature of the Robertson-Walker metric, which is assumed to be valid on very large scales. It is not a feature of Schwarzschild, Kerr, Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi, Szekeres or other metrics that describe smaller structure, although it's true that you can find, say, an LTB that also has a cosmological constant. Since local structure will be described by something close to a Szekeres, it is not influenced by the "universal" expansion.) It's a bit like the universe is that old expanding rubber sheet, and local structures are pebbles rolling around on it. The pebbles aren't growing, even though the space between them is.

Extra points for anyone spotting an enormous logical flaw in this picture that is at the heart of one of cosmology's biggest (and unsolved) fundamental issues.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

Urkki (668283) | about 10 months ago | (#46043499)

Actually, if you want to be accurate: no, it is not a simple calculation, due to the metric expansion of space and all...

I don't want to be accurate to that degree. There's no point. The expansion at 12 million light year scale is who knows how many orders of magnitude less than the accuracy of our best measurements of the distance.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46043699)

Well, if you argue that, you have to give up concept of distance, or concept of speed of light.

No, you just need to give up the concept of simultaneity: the idea that two events at different places can happen at the same time. And that's what you actually have to do to make relativity work. It sounds ridiculous ("counterintuitive" is the usual term), but it's the way the universe works [wikipedia.org] .

It is in fact possible to determine distance of mirror by knowing how long ago sending and reflecting happened.

The time taken for the light to reach the mirror and come back, and hence the measured distance to the mirror, will actually depend on your reference frame (i.e. how fast you're moving when you measure it). Another counterintuitive result, but it happens, because of two different relativistic effects: length contraction and time dilation.

Isn't relativity fun?

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46042935)

i'm genuinely curious, if there was an advanced civilization that sent an escape ship directly towards us 12 million years ago (but appearing to us as this very moment) at slightly less speed than the speed of light, we would only begin to see (in this theoretical case, the ship is somehow visible from start to finish) the ship right now, however it would be nearer than 12mil light years away by the time the image of its launch reached us. would the ship then appear to be moving at a speed greater than the speed of light? would there be "two" ships?

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#46043015)

no, that ship can never outrun any of the light showing its history, so we can watch it launch and speed up and arrive.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46043213)

the historical image of it would of course arrive first, but it would be impossible for an image of the traveling ship arriving at earth before the ship physically does. at what point does the speed of light image of the ship reconcile with the slower than speed of light ship itself on their respective (photons and ship) trips to earth?

Re:It was on the rise... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037637)

> I'm always stressing to people at our star parties the light you see is history.
I'm surprised they still invite you. They probably already know.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46038053)

> I'm always stressing to people at our star parties the light you see is history.
I'm surprised they still invite you. They probably already know.

I'm usually the one with the telescope, making peoples minds boggle. Explaining the speed of light and vast distances I usually have a rapt audience who aren't given to thinking about these things. Nothing quite like a Star Party to answer the questions the people themselves are asking. We don't have the great pictures of Hubble or Spitzer, but we have people who aren't watching TV, but are actually seeing things through the eyepiece and getting some of the science explained first hand.

Re:It was on the rise... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46038173)

but are actually seeing things through the eyepiece and getting some of the science explained first hand.

I can't see through a monocular eye piece, you insensitive clod. ;-)

Actually, that part is true ... when I try to look through a telescope eye-piece all I see is a blob, but strangely, I can see through my DSLR (which seems to have a larger eyepiece than most telescopes do). But I've literally never seen anything through a telescope, which kinda bums me out, because I'd like to.

I strongly suspect that means I'm either an idiot, or looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Of course, the latter could be a symptom of the former.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46038241)

but are actually seeing things through the eyepiece and getting some of the science explained first hand.

I can't see through a monocular eye piece, you insensitive clod. ;-)

Actually, that part is true ... when I try to look through a telescope eye-piece all I see is a blob, but strangely, I can see through my DSLR (which seems to have a larger eyepiece than most telescopes do). But I've literally never seen anything through a telescope, which kinda bums me out, because I'd like to.

I strongly suspect that means I'm either an idiot, or looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Of course, the latter could be a symptom of the former.

Years ago I invested in a motorized Reverse Crayford Focuser (from Jimsmobile) for my telescope. It's been the single best investment - no more motion on distant, high magnification objects from contact with the scope and I can hand the little control unit to anyone to adjust the focus best for their vision. Can't imagine doing these big star parties without one.

Re:It was on the rise... (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#46038949)

Optical devices, such as cameras with optical viewfinders, telescopes and binoculars are designed to to be used with the eye a certain distance away from the eyepiece's lens. This distance is known as "eyepoint", and pesons wearing eyeglasses often have difficulty using "low eyepoint" devices.

 

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46040949)

I work the star parties too and it was unanimous.... no one wants to here your elementary school bullshit.

Re:It was on the rise... (3, Insightful)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#46037713)

Technically, everything you ever perceive is in the past. More often than not, two simultaneous perceptions of the same thing are not even the same past.

How brains manage to correct for both the perception latencies and the action latency, so that we can interact with our environment, is pretty amazing.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46038151)

Technically, everything you ever perceive is in the past. More often than not, two simultaneous perceptions of the same thing are not even the same past.

How brains manage to correct for both the perception latencies and the action latency, so that we can interact with our environment, is pretty amazing.

I try to convey to people that we are effectively, for the sake of explanation, a fixed point in the middle of an aquarium - with little floaty bits all around us in the water, moving at their own velocity on their own course. The light we see took some time to reach us and that floaty bit we think is there is since moved. If we got in a high speed star ship and traced the route back to it we'd find that route likely contains curves and even moves a bit as the gravity of other bodies have diverted it ever so slightly along its path. Due to the speed of light, and the passing nature of it along its way, if we sailed toward a galaxy at Warp speed we'd see it spin much faster than it actually does as we are seeing a fast-forward effect.

Daft as it may sound, we really get people's minds wrapped around some basic physics, even if for a short while, away from the other distractions of life.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#46038235)

This is just patently abs.. ALL GLORY TO THE GREAT HYPNOGALAXY!
(and a few words for the all-caps filter)

Re:It was on the rise... (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46037723)

Except, in our frame of reference, it's happening now, even though it happened then.

Which means in the future, we will would have seen this from before, but we won't have yet known if more stuff which will would have happened in the past will be happening in the present as the future unfolds.

So it is simultaneously not happening now, and happening now -- it isn't really happening now there, but here it is happening now, except it already happened there, and technically it has already happened here, but we're only now becoming aware of it now, but in the future, both will have happened in the past.

Which is why we stick with tenses which make sense to our poor little brains. it's just too damned hard to conjugate the verbs. ;-)

So, from what I've been able to tell -- we discuss it in the present tense, and then occasionally remind ourselves that we're seeing something which happened a long time ago. But then we try not to mix up the two, because it hurts more than an ice-cream headache.

Re:It was on the rise... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037975)

Thank you, Dr. Streetmentioner.

Re:It was on the rise... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038135)

When will then be now? [youtube.com]

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46038307)

When will then be now?

Never, as soon as it's then, then it will be now (but then), but then will refer to a different then than now, and a different now than now because it's then.

Then the now that will be used then is what we now refer to as then. Then we'll have another then from the now that is then, and the then then becomes now. The now we use right now will no longer apply, but the then we use now could still apply then if then was further out than then as of now and then.

And it's turtles all the way down. ;-)

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46038791)

When will then be now? [youtube.com]

Soon.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038483)

That isn't quite right. In principle, it could be happing "now" (or rather in the very recent past) for an observer in, say, our solar system, but only if that observer had a velocity (relative to M82) that was very close to the speed of light. For someone on Earth (having a relative velocity which is only a small fraction of the speed of light), it is correct to say that it happened about "12 million years ago".

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038601)

I've heard gravity travels at the speed of light... Does time travel at the speed of light? If so, then it really is happening as "right now" as it can.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 10 months ago | (#46040601)

Time doesn't travel - that's as meaningless as saying "does left travel at the speed of light" or "does up move more slowly than diagonal?" It's just another dimension, and one the choice of which general relativity makes extremely arbitrary.

Re:It was on the rise... (3, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46038711)

Except, in our frame of reference, it's happening now, even though it happened then.

Nope. In our frame of reference, it most definitely happened then. The light is reaching us now. It's too late to emit a beam of light of our own to meet the supernova light halfway, which it wouldn't be if it was happening now.

The only reference frame at this point in space in which it is happening now is that of the light which is reaching us.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 10 months ago | (#46039479)

Except, in our frame of reference, it's happening now, even though it happened then.

Nope. In our frame of reference, it most definitely happened then. The light is reaching us now.

Well, in common language, there really are at least two "nows". There's "now"(1), as in what may literally be happening somewhere I can't perceive at the moment. "My friend is working at his office now." What I really am saying most of the time is "Based on past information, I predict that if we measured the position and activity of my friend at time T0 -- this instant -- we would be likely to find out at some point in the future (T1) that at T0 my friend had been working at his office."

But there's also "now"(2), as in what I actually can perceive myself at this instant. "The sun is shining now." Well, yes, I suppose -- except those light rays left it some minutes ago; we don't know what the sun is doing now(1). "The police siren is making loud noises now." Well, no -- the police siren made loud noises, perhaps a fraction of a second ago, perhaps even multiple seconds ago if I'm a mile or more away -- but I'm hearing them now. The police siren may actually have ceased sounding by the time I make that statement.

We commonly use language in this way, where "now" can refer to what is happening in our perception, rather than what actually is occurring somewhere else that we can't perceive. In effect, the only place where now(1) and now(2) come close to meeting is when we talk about present observation and perception... which is frankly all we know about anyway.

Light cones create a fixed boundary beyond which information about an event can be known. Talking about what is going on outside our light cone is speculative at best, meaningless at worst. It's not like we could place an intergalatic phone call to our friend and actually find out what's going on this star now(1). We can only know what's going on at now(2).

I understand for physics and mathematical purposes, we like to talk about the abstraction of now(1). But now(2) is actually a more human concept expressing something about our engagement with events as we perceive them. On a galactic or universal scale, it makes sense to describe a supernova as "new" according to the concept of now(2), as roughly applied to our planet. If at some future time, we have observation posts spread out over many light years, it may no longer make sense to have a collective now(2) for humanity. But since we all live on one planet at the present, I can see some usefulness (and common linguistic reasons) for talking about the first information arriving to us as what's happening "now" in our "frame of reference" (loosely defined).

In this case, what's "happening now" in our frame of reference is our perception of the supernova, just as what's "happening now" in my frame of reference may be that "the police siren is making loud noises." Whether or not in fact the siren has ceased making noise at now(1) is generally irrelevant to my statement; what's happening now(1) at the supernova site is not only irrelevant but completely unknowable. It barely even makes sense to define a "now" for that, from an epistemological standpoint.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46044017)

Well, in common language, there really are at least two "nows".

When someone starts a sentence during a discussion related to astrophysics with "In our frame of reference..." I think it's safe to assume they're talking about now(1).

from an epistemological standpoint.

Okay, now you're just making up words! ;)

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 10 months ago | (#46037963)

12 million years ago.

thanks for clarifying that, I mistaken from the article it was two weeks ago.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46038155)

12 million years ago.

thanks for clarifying that, I mistaken from the article it was two weeks ago.

12 million years + 2 weeks. News doesn't travel as fast as it once did.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46038803)

I might be bad at math, but 12 million years plus two weeks is still exactly 12 million years.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 10 months ago | (#46039241)

Yes and pi is exactly 3.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 10 months ago | (#46041539)

Please tell me, precisely, the decimal value of Pi.

3
3.1
3.14
3.142
3.1416
3.14159

Saying "Precisely" and "Pi" is error in numeric values. 3 is no more wrong to say than 3.14159 is. Precision is relative at that point. How accurate do you need to be? a table with a circumference of 18 feet has a radius of just under 3. Saying pi is 3, radius is 3 is reasonable for getting a tablecloth, or knowing how much skirting you need or whatever else your measuring.

On the other hand, we now know the complete value of Pi to enough digits that we can encircle the entire Universe and be accurate to the NANOSECOND. How accurate is enough?

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 10 months ago | (#46041885)

On the other hand, we now know the complete value of Pi to enough digits that we can encircle the entire Universe and be accurate to the NANOSECOND. How accurate is enough?

You can quit when you reach the last digit of Pi. That'll be enough. Call me when you're done.

Re:It was on the rise... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038065)

So what you're saying is that you like flogging a dead horse with the same old science facts that most of the people here were well informed of by the time they reached the 8th grade. Got it.
 
Why don't you tell us again that a black hole has such an enormous gravitational field that not even light can escape it or that man and dinosaur didn't walk the earth at the same time? I just love hearing these trite facts over and over and over again.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038277)

Do you know how many people in this world don't even get those basic concepts? Most. So while you're in your neckbeard haven (i.e. your mother's basement) not getting laid, bitching about repeatedly reading "the same old science facts", remember that if you want society to get a little better then you need to deal with simple factoids being repeated several times.

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46040469)

Did you know that people like you existed alongside the dinosaurs?

Turd.

Re:It was on the rise... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 10 months ago | (#46038141)

12 million years ago.

Well that depends on your frame of reference, doesn't it?

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038387)

Sure, but in our reference frame it happened approx. 12 million years ago. If the relative velocity between us and M82 was a significant fraction of the speed of light, then this number could vary quite a bit even for an observer at the same point in space, but I suspect that "12 million years ago" is a reasonably good approximation for anyone reading this article. ;)

Re:It was on the rise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46039321)

The stars outside of the observable universe that we don't ever see explode. The ones that never interact with our part of the universe. When did those happen? Funny thing is. If you're anywhere 'near' my space-time reference then the event is happening now for us. Space and time are relative.

LOL ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46037581)

Type Ia supernovae are used to measure dark energy, so seeing one nearby is a huge boon to astronomy.

I love Astronomers ... sure, 12 million light years away can be construed as 'nearby' on some scales.

Obviously galaxies tend to be a little further away, but it's definitely a relative use of the term 'nearby'.

Having said that ... go science! This is pretty cool.

Re:LOL ... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#46038193)

Type Ia supernovae are used to measure dark energy, so seeing one nearby is a huge boon to astronomy.

I love Astronomers ... sure, 12 million light years away can be construed as 'nearby' on some scales.

Obviously galaxies tend to be a little further away, but it's definitely a relative use of the term 'nearby'.

Having said that ... go science! This is pretty cool.

I always get a kick out of the title "The Local Group", which means stars in our relative vicinity, 12 ly or so. Big distances, but if you can't handle 'relative' then it's tough sledding doing anything with astronomy.

Re:LOL ... (3, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | about 10 months ago | (#46038857)

I always get a kick out of the title "The Local Group", which means stars in our relative vicinity, 12 ly or so. .

The Local Group is actually a collection of nearby galaxies, not stars. The closest member (not including the Milky Way) is 25k ly away...

Re:LOL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038207)

Type Ia supernovae are used to measure dark energy, so seeing one nearby is a huge boon to astronomy.

I love Astronomers ... sure, 12 million light years away can be construed as 'nearby' on some scales.

Obviously galaxies tend to be a little further away, but it's definitely a relative use of the term 'nearby'.

Having said that ... go science! This is pretty cool.

"nearby" is a subjective term. It does not have an non-relative or context independent meaning.

Re:LOL ... (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 10 months ago | (#46038427)

12 million light years away can be construed as 'nearby' on some scales.

I'm going to check that out. AFK, BRB.

Re:LOL ... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#46038819)

Obviously galaxies tend to be a little further away, but it's definitely a relative use of the term 'nearby'.

Conceptually?

Re:LOL ... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 10 months ago | (#46039229)

It's well within the Virgo Supercluster, but outside the local group, Happy now?

Re:LOL ... (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 10 months ago | (#46040629)

Most of my career has been taken up in cosmology. To me, a megaparsec is the smallest smidgeon that I'll even consider looking at. (Well, until more recently when I've deigned to look at scales as small as a few thousand parsecs.) For context, a megaparsec is the size of a supercluster of galaxies, something like three or four million light years.

Re:LOL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46041009)

Hey fuck, it's called perspective. Are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand this basic fucking concept? Go suck the shit out of another faggots asshole and give it a think.

Re: LOL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46043165)

shit sucking faggots don't think. If they did, the first thing they would think is - hey! why am i sucking shit out of this faggot? It tastes like - shit.
Your thought process is flawed. it would be better for you not to think. as long as you don't become a shitsucking faggot. - not that there is anything wrong with that.

Huge boon (0, Offtopic)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 10 months ago | (#46037591)

More like huge boom! lol amirite?

Re:Huge boon (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46037863)

More like huge boom! lol amirite?

No boom today. Boom tomorrow.

Always boom tomorrow.

Re:Huge boon (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 10 months ago | (#46041897)

+100 Ivanova points for you!

M81 and M82 (2)

dataspel (2436808) | about 10 months ago | (#46037677)

The galaxies M81 and M82 are only about 300K ly from each other. A decent telescope can image them both at the same time. Relatively easy to find in Ursa Major too. I look forward to viewing this during the next new Moon.

Re:M81 and M82 (3, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#46038797)

The galaxies M81 and M82 are only about 300K ly from each other. A decent telescope can image them both at the same time.

Not if you were standing between them.

Re:M81 and M82 (1)

dataspel (2436808) | about 10 months ago | (#46038977)

The galaxies M81 and M82 are only about 300K ly from each other. A decent telescope can image them both at the same time.

Not if you were standing between them.

I will make sure not to do that during the next star party.

Re:M81 and M82 (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 10 months ago | (#46038973)

The galaxies M81 and M82 are only about 300K ly from each other. A decent telescope can image them both at the same time.

Well, technically, the less decent the telescope is the better the chance of "imaging" both at the same time - less magnification = larger FOV. Any photo of the night sky at the right time would contain both, not that you'd actually see them.

Re:M81 and M82 (1)

dataspel (2436808) | about 10 months ago | (#46039085)

Agreed, good point.

Re:M81 and M82 (1)

BullInChina (3376331) | about 10 months ago | (#46039861)

Actually the better telescope (Cost more) is the one with the largest apeture and the lowest focal ratio (lowest mag) because highly curved mirrors needed for lower mag are hard to produce.

Re:M81 and M82 (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 10 months ago | (#46042557)

Actually the better telescope (Cost more) is the one with the largest apeture and the lowest focal ratio (lowest mag) because highly curved mirrors needed for lower mag are hard to produce.

I'm really not an expert in telescopes, but from what I've seen you can spend a lot of money on a telescope in almost any focal ratio. Also, strictly speaking lower focal ratio doesn't necessarily mean lower magnification, but it does mean lower magnification for a given aperture. Virtually all telescopes involve compromise from engineering feasibility to siting to cost. A moderately-priced scope with a nice wide FOV might be desirable for scouting for asteroids, while scopes placed in space don't really need as low a focal ratio since they can stare at one point for as long as they need to not worrying about sunrise, air distortion, or weather.

So, telescopes aren't really better or worse so much as better-suited to a particular mission.

But, yes, I've sometimes wondered if it would be neat to have an f/0.001 telescope. You might be able to range asteroids just by looking at the focus setting, or cook a hotdog with the reflected microwave background.

it's not "new" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037733)

We're observing it some 12 million years after the fact. That hardly qualifies as "new".

Re:it's not "new" (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#46037931)

The information is new to us. Take your meds.

Re:it's not "new" (1)

discord5 (798235) | about 10 months ago | (#46037951)

We're observing it some 12 million years after the fact. That hardly qualifies as "new".

Slashdot always lags behind the facts a few days, or more...

Re:it's not "new" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038287)

Then why didn't you predict it happening 12 million years ago? You would be famous!

But no, you only predict it hours after the light gets here, claiming you somehow "knew" magically before hand. Did your god tell you or something? Magic unicorns?

No? You mean you actually had no idea it happened until just now? Proving yourself wrong and an idiot at the same time doesn't sound like much fun, you should really look into a new past time.

P.S. Fuck you up the ass slashdot!
It's been 5 hours and 41 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
FUCK YOU

Intersting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037777)

I'm a casual and very interested follower of these post about astronomy, I'm always interested about what you guys are up to.

Re:Intersting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038403)

You're better off going to someplace like space.com or phys.org. More science news and better discussions than the old "that light traveled for 12 MILLION YEARS!!!!11111!!!!!" or "12 million light years is considered near by?!?!?!!!!!LOLzzz!!!! HeeHee... HERP" ramblings we have to hear anytime astronomy information is posted here.

time space circumstance unextraordinary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037797)

it's the corepirate nazi WMD on credit genocider hypenosys that's throwing us out of sync with creation itself? not surprising.

FIRST POST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037849)

Fact: *BSD +IS A [goat.cx]

Neutrinos? (5, Informative)

Framboise (521772) | about 10 months ago | (#46037877)

THE question I am sure many will think about is how many neutrinos will be detected.
For supernova 1987a at 168'000 light years 24 neutrinos have been detected.
At 12 mega light years M82 is 71 times further, which dilutes the neutrinos by a factor ~5000.
So the answer is 0 neutrino if the detectors were the same as in 1987.
I doubt that the present detectors have improved by a factor 1000 in the meanwhile,
but I would be glad to be disproved.

Re:Neutrinos? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46037999)

1987A was a type II supernova which can have ~1000 times as much energy in neutrinos than a type I like this one. So even if they were the same distance a much smaller signal would be seen.

Re:Neutrinos? (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 10 months ago | (#46040661)

1987A was also in one of the Magellanic Clouds, which are climbing all over us. It seems unfortunately unlikely we'll get many neutrinos from this, although the improvement in technology since the 80s might mean we get roughly the same number as from 1987A. (Less than 20 detections -- 17 or so, if memory serves me, which these days it rarely does.)

Re:Neutrinos? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038671)

It's a type Ia supernovae, which do not produce neutrios in large numbers. So even if it were at the same distance as 1987A (a type II SNe), we still woudn't expect to detect any.

Rare to see the word nearby in astronomy articles (1)

sandbagger (654585) | about 10 months ago | (#46037987)

Should we get out our sunscreen?

An interesting definition of "nearby' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038139)

"The galaxy is less than 12 million light years away, ... so seeing one nearby ..."

Re:An interesting definition of "nearby' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038435)

> "The galaxy is less than 12 million light years away, ... so seeing one nearby ..."

We're talking galaxies here. Andromeda is the closest spiral galaxy to us, and that's 2.5 million light years away.

And it's HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US!!!

I love space-scales (2)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 10 months ago | (#46038237)

only here 12 million light-years could be implied to be near ^^

Re:I love space-scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46038937)

In Congress, 12 million, or even billion, can also in some circumstances, be considered close.

Re:I love space-scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46042595)

"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them 'astronomical' numbers. Now we should call them 'economical' numbers."

  - Richard Feynman

Re:I love space-scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46042235)

Near counts in,
          Horse shoes
          Hand grenades
          Super novas

Almost 12-million-years-old news... (0)

oo_00 (2595337) | about 10 months ago | (#46038311)

Old news is old.

I, for one (1)

Roachie (2180772) | about 10 months ago | (#46038945)

... would like to welcome our new supernova refugee overlords!

Easy to see? (2)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 10 months ago | (#46039011)

It's currently already brighter than magnitude 12, and may get to mag 8, easy to see in small telescopes.

That's a pretty optimistic statement given the rampant state of light pollution around the world!

The naked eye limit is Mag. 3 for most of us who live near any streetlights. Magnitude 8 objects require a 6-8" telescope, preferably with tracking if you want to find the Mag. 8 galaxy.

I don't think of telescopes above 4" as "small."

I type this not to be annoying, but because a lot of people are going to waste a lot of time at night trying to see this thing when it is likely beyond their equipment (or patience) limit.

Re:Easy to see? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46043755)

I have a 4.5" scope, and I was wondering if I could see it.

I appreciate knowing that I can't. Thanks!

space (1)

luther349 (645380) | about 10 months ago | (#46039827)

just goes to show everything has a life cycle even the galaxy its self.

Re:space (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 10 months ago | (#46040671)

Strictly speaking it goes to show that a white dwarf can have a life cycle. The galaxy this supernova went bang-bang in is going to happily carry on for billions upon billions of years yet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?