Giant planetary body named G1.9

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Acidtastic
if this Spanish team have come forward to say different, why shouldn't they be believed? are they not credible?

They haven't said anything that makes sense. They haven't given an orbit for the object, so they have no way of claiming it's a solar system object. All I see right now is an appeal to authority based on the fact that they call themselves astronomers. Well then they must be astronomers, right? We don't even know their names.

Which is the reason I ask, I've not heard of the starviewer team outside of this thread. Do we know if they are credible or not?

If it's up to NASA to tell us if there really is a brown dwarf out there, we'd be left with situation "I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me"

Originally posted by Archirvion
The fun thing is that its a bigger chance that everyone on this forum wins 1000 billion dollar each by tomorrow than actually any of the post readers\writers are even close to understanding this topic.

Astronomy is very understandable, though sometimes mathematically complicated. The problem is that the "starview team" has not presented any proof that this object is moving, let alone solved for an orbit that would show it to be within the solar system.

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Which is the reason I ask, I've not heard of the starviewer team outside of this thread. Do we know if they are credible or not?

This is the only subject I've ever seen them involved in. I don't know of a single publication they've made in any reputable journal.

If it's up to NASA to tell us if there really is a brown dwarf out there, we'd be left with situation "I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me"

I disagree, but in any case if a brown dwarf is approaching us it will become visible to amateurs as well as professional astronomers, and not all or even most of the latter work for NASA.

Dang, I hate learning the hard way!

Will just read and keep me opinions to meself next time!

Yeah, no verifiable or good info to back this article up.

reply to post by SunnyDee

I wonder if there are records that show that a super nova went of? Isn't this super nova supposed to be 150 years old?

This thread is still going? Heavens above!

reply to post by dragnet53

I wonder if there are records that show that a super nova went off? Isn't this super nova supposed to be 150 years old?

Well, actually, it's more like 25,000 years old.

It is also about 25,000 light-years away from us, so the light from its explosion took 25,000 years to reach Earth. It arrived, yes, about 140 years ago.*

The thing is, this 'light' reached us in the form of X-rays and radio waves rather than as visible light (radio waves, X-rays and visible light are all the same thing, by the way: kinds of 'light').

The visible light didn't reach us because the supernova sits inside a thick cloud of gas and dust that blocks it out, but lets radio waves and X-rays through. That's why nobody saw a supernova appear in the sky 140 years ago, or at any time since.

In 1985, radio waves from the supernova remnant were detected. This allowed scientists to get an idea of its size (as seen from Earth) in 1985.

More recently, the orbiting X-ray telescope Chandra detected X-rays from the supernova remnant. This allowed scientists to get an idea of its size (as seen from Earth) in 2007.

By comparing the two sizes, they could see how much the supernova remnant had expanded in 22 years.

Then, using this figure and other data, they were able to work backwards and see that the supernova remnant had taken about 140 years to reach its present size (as seen from Earth). Meaning that (again as seen from Earth), the explosion happened 140-odd years ago.

But in what we may call Universal Galactic Time, it actually happened roughly 25,000 years + about 140 years ago.

If we could see it from near by, the supernova remnant would look very different from what we can see through our telescopes. It would be much, much bigger and much, much fainter, with an obvious white dwarf at the centre of it.

But we can't see it that way. We can only see it as it looks to us, all these thousands of light-years away and thousands of years later.

Space is big.

I hope that makes things clear. I also wonder how many times this has been explained in the thread already. I'm certainly not going back to look.


*These are approximate figures. You can look the actual ones up on the Web.

S&f for the thread
Nice one. See you have still got the nay sayers lol

Originally posted by jazz10
S&f for the thread
Nice one. See you have still got the nay sayers lol

Well, yeah. Of course there are naysayers...

...G1.9 is a supernova 25,000 light years away -- it's not a brown dwarf, comet, or anything else that is anywhere near our solar system. In fact , it is 1/4 of the way across the galaxy. There are a lot of other solar systems between it and us.

By studying its rate of expansion, it is believed that the light from this supernova explosion first reached Earth 140 years ago, but that means it happened (i.e., exploded) roughly 25,140 years ago.

Source

Hey all! From what i can gather, you are all a little weary of this topic but it's quite new to me and I'm hoping you guys can clear something up for me. Over the past few months, we have been fascinated by an incredibly bright star/planet/? which appears in the sky N/NW in eastern Australia in the late afternoon- long before any other lights are visible in the sky. At first I was content with the explanation that it was venus, but then it was announed on our local news some 3 weeks ago that "the bright light you are seeing is in fact NOT Venus, but a supernova which is behind venus" ie venus is no longer visible because something much bigger is behind it...is it g1.9 that they are referring to? Would that appear in the same position as venus making it no longer discernable? I'm confused, and when I visited the news network's website to watch the article again and record the name of the supernova they had mentioned, there was no record of such an article which further stimulated my spidey senses :-) I've tried to work this out for myself but I know basically nothing about astronomy and so struggle with the right keywords etc...thanks in advance...

Originally posted by cluelessnoob
At first I was content with the explanation that it was venus, but then it was announed on our local news some 3 weeks ago that "the bright light you are seeing is in fact NOT Venus, but a supernova which is behind venus" ie venus is no longer visible because something much bigger is behind it...is it g1.9 that they are referring to?

LOL, which news station said that? Can you link to an article about that story? That's utter nonsense.

Would that appear in the same position as venus making it no longer discernable?

No; G1.9+0.3 is nowhere near Venus in the sky, nor is it visible in visible light.

I'm confused, and when I visited the news network's website to watch the article again and record the name of the supernova they had mentioned, there was no record of such an article which further stimulated my spidey senses :-)

Sounds like you might have misheard something on TV then, because any such story about a bright supernova appearing behind, let alone obscuring Venus, would be untrue.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by ngchunter]

The topic covered in the OP was discussed by Nasa'a "Ask an Astrobiologist" segment here:

astrobiology.nasa.gov...

They conclude that it is indeed a hoax.

That's very interesting, I'm quite sure I heard the news report correctly and so did other adults in the room, although at the time I didn't take note of the name of the body they spoke of (silly me). Perhaps the station WAS the victim of a hoax and removed the report from their website in embarrasment- poor form for a national network! When we heard the report, we assumed that a "supernova" was a makeshift explanation to deflect the growing perception that the bright light in the sky can't possibly be venus.
Thanks for clarifying.

reply to post by cluelessnoob


I suppose I'm confused by this part of what you are saying: Exactly why do you think there is a "growing perception that the bright light in the sky can't possibly be Venus."

...I guess I'm asking you why you would say that people are thinking the bright object that looks like Venus can't possibly be Venus? Where is this growing perception? Who feels this way?

Venus has always been the brightest natural object in our sky (except for the Sun and Moon) with a magnitude that varies, but can be of about -4.5 at its brightest. It is that way now and has been that way in the past. That hasn't changed (i.e., Venus looks the same as it had in the past).



[edit on 8/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

By growing perception I just mean peoples comments ie "what's that gigantic bright pulsing light, it can't possibly be Venus". I have certainly never seen it this large or bright before, its visible long before sunset which to me seemed unusual. When I started looking on the net to confirm what it was, I found a lot of people had asked similar questions-and I also found a few fairly far-fetched ideas, suggesting that there was a planet in front of/behind, or a space-ship in front of the planet and masquerading AS Venus, among others. I was quite happy with Venus being Venus until the news said it WASNT, and the idea that it was a supernova behind venus seemed illogical to me, making me wonder what they were trying to hide. You people sound like you know a thing or two about astronomy so I'm happy with Venus being Venus once more. There's no mystery, just mis-information.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me:-)

I don't mean this post to be demeaning, but I think there are many people (perhaps such yourself) who have never really looked closely at the sky and/or just recently took an interest in the sky.

I, too, have noticed many people (including here on ATS) who have wondered what the bright object was in the sky, only to have it revealed by the location and timing of the observation that they were actually looking at Venus.

It seems people take the brightness of Venus for granted until they really notice it, and then they wonder how they ever could have missed such a bright object. Part of that may be that the brightness of Venus can vary relative to its location from Earth -- i.e. it may be much brighter sometimes and not as bright other times, so when it is VERY bright, it gets noticed.

No. As I stated, I know absolutely nothing about astronomy, but I am a "vague" but "avid" sky watcher, I have always sat outside at night and pondered the stars, albeit in a very unknowlegable and disorganised way. I have a rough picture of what the sky looks like. Please don't mistake this for stupidity, I have just never applied the time and effort required to learn astronomy, but that doesn't make me an idiot, or someone who doesnt know what they see. I have never seen anything that resembles venus the way that it appears now. It's gigantic and seems unusual to me. When Mars was close a few years ago, there were news articles a few months ahead, inviting people to look to the skies, so that they might witness the "astrological event". I accept that this IS venus, but I dont know why there would be no hooplah and carry-on inviting people to watch, as I have never seen anything this big or vibrant in the sky before.

reply to post by Phage

What's really absurd is the idea that the supernova (or G1.9) was, or is, inside or anywhere near the solar system at all. A supernova would have destroyed the solar system entirely.

Come on peeps Sorcha Faals writing style alone stands out like a sore thumb. Sorecha Fowl. Posting her crap on this site is a full on rejection
of the truth.

Here's that reminder.



Sorcha Faal desacreates the truth.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by randyvs]

If G1.9is in fact a red or brown dwarf and not a supernova at, all could it in fact be the supposed gas giant that Nasa think they may have descovered in the oort cloud ??

reply to post by loner007

So sorry if this has been or already had this reply...

here is what Google earth using Chandra X-ray Showcase has posted:

Kepler's Supernova Remnant: A supernova remnant believed to be created when a star exploded over 400 years ago.

This composite Chandra X-ray (blue and green), Hubble Space Telescope optical (yellow), and Spitzer Space Telescope infrared (red) image shows a cloud of gas and dust that is 14 light years in diameter and expanding at 4 million miles per hour (2,000 kilometers per second). The optical image reveals 10,000 degrees Celsius gas where the supernova shock wave is slamming into the densest regions of surrounding gas. The infrared image highlights microscopic dust particles swept up and heated by the supernova shock wave. The X-ray data show regions with multimillion degree gas, or extremely high energy particles. The higher-energy X-rays (colored blue) come primarily from the regions directly behind the shock front. Lower-energy X-rays (colored green) mark the location of the hot remains of the exploded star. Learn more »

Long story short, G1.9 is thousands of light years away, and has absolutely nothing to do with our solar system.
en.wikipedia.org...