Betelgeuse,Betelgeuse,Betelgeuse is acting strange. is it about to explode into massive supernova

Considering Betelgeuse is 640 light years from Earth... I'm fairly sure it's gone boom along, along time ago.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Topcraft

If you listen to the skeptic observer, Betelgeuse is the third star to go into a nova from the galactic center, he thinks that Sol is next as the pulse from the galactic center moves out. He thinks that they are mini novas where the dust from the pulse gets blown off the star.Then we get our three days of darkness.

I think this quartet links will surely intrigue you. I find that they all compliment and confirm eachothers claims

1. Diehold foundation, Douglas B.Vogt - ice age series YT -
2. Suspicious observers, Ben Davidson - Disaster cycle YT -
3. Hidden Inca Tours, Brien Foerster - material evidence YT - (sculptures near the end, solar damage)
4. Thunderbolts Project, Tallbot/Thornhill e.a. , archetypal evidence and EU theory (IMO probable science of the future generations) -

youtube.com...@ThunderboltsProject

Also check out; Chan Thomas (Adam & Eve story), Immanuel Velikovsky (worlds in collision), Anthony Peratt, Randal Carlson.

a reply to: gb540

I've always had a theory that the supposedly weakest force in the universe... gravity might actually be the greatest force in the universe. Being that the key to interstellar and dimensional travel might be gravity and gravity wells of planets and stars. Maybe losing Betelgeuse as a gravity well could create a disruption in local interstellar travel from a certain direction. Think of it as a roadblock or closing of a gas station along a highway. You have to take an alternate route from one point to another.

You have to remember that we've never previously really had the tools to observe / monitor a relatively close star before it goes supernova (640+/- light years away is close enough thank you very much) so other than theory we've never been able to observe the last dying gasps of a supergiant star.
IIRC the dimming in 2019 was from the star emitting a huge amount of its mass as it starts to fight that (perhaps) last battle between contracting due to gravity and expanding as it burns whatever's left in its core. So we don't really know what 'normal' is in this stage of the death of Betelgeuse.
Seeing it cast a shadow at night is going to be very cool though.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Sometime between now and 100,000 years....lol I think we need to worry about Yellowstone more. It would have zero effect on Earth other than to be very bright and even seen in the daytime.

Not sure Xtrozero why people think posting about Betelgeuse equals worrying about it going supernova and killing us all (gasp).

Pretty much just interested in seeing any changes in Betelguese, from the little bit of expanded technological perspective we humans have now, no more no less

Fully aware a Yellowstone event is more likely and the locale of such an event, makes it much more impactful and significant in the evolutionary process of homo sapiens.

a reply to: putnam6

Oh, we'll have an excellent seat when Betelgeuse blows, whenever that happens, or rather whenever we finally see it from 640-odd years away. I love looking up at the stars and realising that we're all looking back in time whenever we do that.
By the way, IIRC we don't need to worry too much about Yellowstone, as the magma chamber seems to be crystallising in places, meaning that parts are cooling. No, it's the next caldera forming event that we really have to worry about, North-East of where the current caldera is. That hot spot moving, or rather North America is travelling over the hot spot. But I digress.

originally posted by: putnam6

Not sure Xtrozero why people think posting about Betelgeuse equals worrying about it going supernova and killing us all (gasp).

Pretty much just interested in seeing any changes in Betelguese, from the little bit of expanded technological perspective we humans have now, no more no less

I was referring more to the couple of posts that suggest it would have a big impact on the planet. Also, the chances of us seeing it is extremely small as it would have needed to blow 650 years ago for us in the next 50 years to see it and when it is maybe in the next 100,000 years that is a very tight window.

So if we see it blow that would mean Earth wouldn't feel anything for over 700 years maybe longer depending on how fast the shock wave is .

Never mind if we see it blow that happened 700 years ago and the shock wave is well on its way , Got to get used to the time travel thing lol


But wait if the shock wave has been traveling "If it blew 700 years ago" We should see the results of the shock wave since it would be closer to us (In tme).... I'm confusing myself lol We will see the shock wave before we see it blow ........ Right ?

a reply to: putnam6

The rebirth of Osiris the king.. Soon peeps will know why the ancients worshiped the stars.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Honestly it's doubtful a physical Shockwave could perpetrate that far, and it would outpaced by the light from the explosion anyhow. So we would see it, and then, years (?) later we would feel it.

Think lightning (seeing it) and thunder (feeling it).

The harmful radiation from a supernova comes in the form of gamma rays. The intensity of gamma radiation decreases with the square of the distance from the source (this is known as the inverse square law). The formula for the inverse square law is:

I = P / (4 * π * d^2)

where:

I is the intensity of the radiation,
P is the power (energy per unit time) of the radiation source, and
d is the distance from the source.
The minimum safe distance from a supernova is generally accepted to be about 50 light-years. Betelgeuse is approximately 700 light-years away. So, we can calculate the relative intensity of a supernova at Betelgeuse's distance compared to the minimum safe distance:

(50/700)^2 = 0.0051

This means that if Betelgeuse were to go supernova, we would receive about 0.51% of the intensity of radiation that would be considered potentially harmful. This is well within the safe zone.

It's also worth noting that the Earth's atmosphere is very effective at absorbing high-energy gamma radiation, so the radiation would not significantly affect the surface or the biosphere.

Regarding other effects, the particles and dust expelled by the supernova would take hundreds to thousands of years to reach us, due to the vast distances involved. By the time they did arrive, they would be so diffuse that they wouldn't have any significant impact on our planet or its ecosystem.

So, even though Betelgeuse going supernova would be a spectacular astronomical event, it wouldn't pose a risk to us here on Earth.

originally posted by: Quadlink
a reply to: Topcraft

Spooky action at a distance is faster than light ,,, proven but the physics involved are unknown !

Spooky //

All the best

I have to admit, I have the most basic understanding of regular physics. Quantum and string theory’s, not even that.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: putnam6

The rebirth of Osiris the king.. Soon peeps will know why the ancients worshiped the stars.

Ah, the simplest theory of all. Think we’re past that at this point in history. The whole science thing since ancient Egypt and all.

a reply to: LoneWolfMT

The one thing I really regret in my life, is that I didn’t realize the power of mathematics at a young age. I would have paid far more attention in school. Massively useful.

originally posted by: NewNobodySpecial268
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

You got me interested there TEOT.

I have wondered for some time why we have heavy elements on earth. Someone in a physics lesson said elements heavier than iron were not natural to earth.

Nobody who knows physics would say such a thing. So either the physics instructor didn't know physics, or they didn't say that.

Couldn't wrap my head around it at the time.

That may be a good thing, it's a completely nonsensical statement, maybe you were too smart to believe nonsense.

originally posted by: 2Faced
I think this quartet links will surely intrigue you. I find that they all compliment and confirm eachothers claims

1. Diehold foundation, Douglas B.Vogt - ice age series YT -
2. Suspicious observers, Ben Davidson - Disaster cycle YT -
3. Hidden Inca Tours, Brien Foerster - material evidence YT -
4. Thunderbolts Project, Tallbot/Thornhill e.a. , archetypal evidence and EU theory (IMO probable science of the future generations) -

I can't say anything about #1, but I've heard 2, 3, and 4 spout copious amounts of completely incorrect crap, so if that's what you want to hear, by all means check them out. It's possible they may even say something correct once in a while, but usually, it's nothing but pseudoscientific BS.

originally posted by: LoneWolfMT
The minimum safe distance from a supernova is generally accepted to be about 50 light-years.

You would probably get a lot of astrophysicists to agree that a supernova less than 50 light years is a risk to Earth. However, I suspect you would get less agreement that 51 light years or more is safe. You didn't cite a source for that but even if you did I'm not sure it's correct. Here's a source which says that was the old belief and now the thinking is over 160 light years is probably safe.

What’s a safe distance from a supernova for Earth?

What is the closest safe distance? According to a recent study based on data from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory , a supernova would have to be within 160 light-years of Earth before we would feel its damaging effects. Formerly, it was believed a supernova would have to be within 50 light-years of Earth to impact our planet.

So I guess we have more data from the Chandra X-ray observatory to take into account now. Your conclusion was correct in any case that Betelgeuse at about 700 light years away is too far away to pose a significant risk.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I believe that the OP was correct on the post about heavy elements but did not explain what was actually meant.

Elements heavier than iron are not formed by geological processes but need more neutrons than are found in supernovae. The speculation was that neutron stars could produce heavier elements if they merged. Until a few years ago it was just an idea.

And yes, the gravitational waves do not travel faster than light but that part happens prior to EM burst of the nova. That is why they were watching that area of space. When it looked like a merger was imminent they pointed a telescope in the direction. When the kilanova was confirmed by both gravity and EM radiation then other telescopes were pointed. That is where the radio telescopes confirmed the spectral line for strontium (??) and validated that neutron mass elements over a certain size were created in neutron star mergers.

Those elements drift around, get picked up by comets and what not, then fall into gravity wells as planets are formed. That is where the heavier elements are formed. They are “natural” on the planet but come from space.

Nuclear synthesis is the term (I think). And there is some debate about even the source of copper which is also natural to the environment!

Here’s to hoping that one lifetime is enough of a wait for the fireworks!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nobody who knows physics would say such a thing. So either the physics instructor didn't know physics, or they didn't say that.

Not the right forum here so I will simply mention; that instructor was a grey.

We were looking into the aftermath of Fukushima and how on earth one might fix it.

It asked me as my introduction to physics; what is left over if the particles are not there.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I believe that the OP was correct on the post about heavy elements but did not explain what was actually meant.

Elements heavier than iron are not formed by geological processes but need more neutrons than are found in supernovae.

That doesn't make any sense either. Elements lighter than iron are not formed by geological processes either! So it makes no sense to say "Elements heavier than iron are not formed by geological processes" which sort of implies that elements lighter than iron are.

Iron is usually the heaviest element produced by the most massive stars. Stars can't fuse elements heavier than iron in significant quantities because there is less energy out than energy required for the process.

The speculation was that neutron stars could produce heavier elements if they merged. Until a few years ago it was just an idea.

They can produce heavier elements in large amounts, but these neutron star collisions are thought to be relatively rare occurrences, probably not enough to explain the majority of the heavy elements.

This source says supernovae may produce a moon's mass worth of gold, while a neutron star collision may produce a Jupiter's mass of gold. So if those events occurred at the same frequency neutron star mergers would dominate as the source, but they are so rare, they don't.

Neutron star mergers and supernovas are both capable of making making r-process elements. But there’s a big difference in just how much each of those options can make. Supernovas produce perhaps our moon’s worth of gold. Neutron star mergers, by contrast, make about a Jupiter-size mass of gold — thousands of times more than in a supernova — but they happen far less frequently...

When Fryer and colleagues used more moderate guesses about how often neutron star mergers occur and how much r-process material they yield, they found that neutron star mergers can explain only 1 percent of the r-process elements observed in the universe. And if the true rate lies at the lowest end, they could contribute a hundred times less again. “More people are going back to ‘Huh, what other sources of r process can we have?’” Fryer said.

That’s where supernovas may see their stock rise again. If perhaps 1 percent of core collapse supernovas behave differently than the standard simulations predict, they might also be able to make considerable amounts of r-process elements in a chocolate chip pattern.

Anyway I'd say it's a topic of ongoing research but the data collection and pace of progress in astronomy is fairly rapid, so we will have better guesses in the future of how much of the heavy elements come from what processes.