General discussion


Red giant Betelgeuse

By santeewelding ·
Tags: Off Topic
Almost the size of the orbit of Jupiter, I read, confirms for me that the magnitude of our affairs will have to serve me, there being no way for me to comprehend those of Betelgeuse.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by seanferd In reply to That would be very cool

I'd have to look up the predictions for a star of that nature, but I imagine you'd be left with a nice nebula* - a shoulder guard for armor, lit by a fairly bright stellar corpse. It may do a Type II supernova, which could be very bright for a long while, particularly if the neutron star is fairly energetic.

*Actually, it already has one.

edit: Thanks for the comment on the LRO thread. At the time I'd read the one comment, I felt as if I had delivered enough snark for one day, and I didn't want to take it apart piece by piece to explain to Mr. Ninth Grade Graduate how he was <i>not even wrong</i>.

IOW, good to see you.

Collapse -

Normally not to snarky, just hit me at the wrong time

by Michael Jay In reply to Hmmm.

so I slapped, my nonsense filter was low.

Been watching and wondering about Betelgeuse for some years, the fact that it is blowing off so much material is interesting but the real action is deep inside the star at the core, no one knows what lurks there.

When the core collapses it will ****, it may have already happened, or will happen many years from now, no one knows that either.

It would be the most awesome thing ever to be looking at the star just as it blows, a once in a hundred lifetimes event.

If somehow folks are living on a planet orbiting that rather turbulent star they must be scrambling for a way to get the **** out of there, but the variable nature of the star may have wiped them out already. Unless their armada is already running away, and can they get far enough fast enough to survive, I see a movie plot working here.

Collapse -

Wait now, don't backpedal.

by seanferd In reply to Normally not to snarky, j ...

Tell me that you really, really meant it. :^0

Betelgeuse is, indeed, a pretty weird star as far as those things go. Hard to get a good fix on a lot of specifics.

Collapse -

Of all the incomprehensibly large objects available,

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Red giant Betelgeuse

why did you select this one for comparison?

Collapse -

Perhaps because this is the one

by Michael Jay In reply to Of all the incomprehensib ...

most likely to go bang soon.

And you gotta love that it is so close, 640 light years away, a great show no matter what.

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to Of all the incomprehensib ...

At the time I was reading a PhysOrg article about a nebula accompanying the star. The article in passing noted the size of the star, in the words I subsequently used. Mine in turn was an idle comparison of that (incomprehensible) magnitude compared to our concerns about earth and the "magnitude" of climate change. Both proceed with or without our concern.

That is the story of earth-change -- our concern and how it proceeds, as far as I am concerned. It is not as others here would have it, which amounts to a story of back-and-forth, "scientific" brick-bats.

Collapse -

Climate change?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Because

Your original post was about climate change???

Collapse -

Climate change?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Because

Your original post was about climate change??? Oooo-kay.

Collapse -

Natural disasters.

by seanferd In reply to Because

Usually are not disasters, excepting humans being in the wrong places and expecting the obvious will never happen.

Climate change, of course, will occur regardless of human interests. Anthropogenic climate change, like beach nourishment. could not occur without human interests.

Collapse -

The natural

by santeewelding In reply to Natural disasters.

Is uniformly not disastrous. I think I can say that without attribution or explanation. So can you, Seanferd. You could have shortened what you said to, "Natural disasters are not", without "usually". They are not from either direction.


errant, "the".

Related Discussions

Related Forums