Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Betelgeuse dimming probably caused by dust


Waspie_Dwarf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Dimming Betelgeuse likely isn’t cold, just dusty, new study shows

Quote

Late last year, news broke that the star Betelgeuse was fading significantly, ultimately dropping to around 40% of its usual brightness. The activity fueled popular speculation that the red supergiant would soon explode as a massive supernova.

But astronomers have more benign theories to explain the star’s dimming behavior. And scientists at the University of Washington and Lowell Observatory believe they have support for one of them: Betelgeuse isn’t dimming because it’s about to explode — it’s just dusty.

arrow3.gif Read More: University of Washington

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 hours ago, Aardvark-DK said:

Thank God, Ford Prefect can go home again...

Just because there isn't going to be a supernova in the near future it doesn't mean that there hasn't been a great collapsing Hrung disaster there.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Just because there isn't going to be a supernova in the near future it doesn't mean that there hasn't been a great collapsing Hrung disaster there.

But what is a Hrung and why did it collapse on Betelgeuse ? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Just because there isn't going to be a supernova in the near future it doesn't mean that there hasn't been a great collapsing Hrung disaster there.

True, and I find the idea that a supernova 700 light years away isn't enough to cause us problems to be alarming.

Simple logic says a second sun for 2 months is going to add extra heat to Earth. Look what happened in Australia, it could be us all when we discover that star has gone pop.

Edited by RabidMongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
11 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

True, and I find the idea that a supernova 700 light years away isn't enough to cause us problems to be alarming.

Simple logic says a second sun for 2 months is going to add extra heat to Earth. Look what happened in Australia, it could be us all when we discover that star has gone pop.

It won't be a "second sun", that is an exaggeration. It will appear like an extremely bright star, which might be visible during the day. It will cast shadows at night. To put that into perspective, if you know where to look Venus is visible during the day and, in a dark environment, can cast shadows.

Heat is not an issue even for a nearby supernova, gamma-rays are the problem, but Betelgeuse is 10 to 20 times too far away from us for this to be a problem.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
20 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

But what is a Hrung and why did it collapse on Betelgeuse ? 

I would suggest you ask Ford Prefect but he doesn't know either.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

It won't be a "second sun", that is an exaggeration. It will appear like an extremely bright star, which might be visible during the day. It will cast shadows at night. To put that into perspective, if you know where to look Venus is visible during the day and, in a dark environment, can cast shadows.

Heat is not an issue even for a nearby supernova, gamma-rays are the problem, but Betelgeuse is 10 to 20 times too far away from us for this to be a problem.

We have never been through one before in the modern era where we roughly knew how far away the exploding star was.

There are a lot of assumptions being made that are untested. We might not be as safe as some think.

Edited by RabidMongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
35 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

We have never been through one before in the modern era where we roughly knew how far away the exploding star was.

There are a lot of assumptions being made that are untested. We might not be as safe as some think.

Wrong.

There have been MANY supernova that we know how far way they are. Just because a supernova is distant doesn't mean the distance and output can't be measured with a high degree of accuracy.

The thing is that scientists understand the maths involved. They understand the inverse square rule and that as distance doubles the amount of radiation received is quartered. They understand the process of core collapse and that E=MC2 so they know the maximum amount of energy that can be produced and they know that at 700 ly Betelgeuse is to far away to be a problem. They know that no magic will be involved that will make it dangerous. You are the one making the assumptions, the astronomers are using facts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Wrong.

There have been MANY supernova that we know how far way they are. Just because a supernova is distant doesn't mean the distance and output can't be measured with a high degree of accuracy.

The thing is that scientists understand the maths involved. They understand the inverse square rule and that as distance doubles the amount of radiation received is quartered. They understand the process of core collapse and that E=MC2 so they know the maximum amount of energy that can be produced and they know that at 700 ly Betelgeuse is to far away to be a problem. They know that no magic will be involved that will make it dangerous. You are the one making the assumptions, the astronomers are using facts.

We cannot measure distance with a high degree of accuracy. Estimates for Betelgeuse range from 500 to 1000 light years as an example. But the main issue isn't radiation, its planet warming when it goes pop. Since we have had the technology to measure supernova none have occurred within our vicinity. We are reliant on models which tell us they are safe, but there are untested in our galactic neighbourhood.

All it takes is an extra 10C in summer and there will be massive wildfires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

We cannot measure distance with a high degree of accuracy.

Because of the methods used to measure near by stars there is a high percentage error. When using Cephid variables to measure the distance to globular clusters and galaxies the percentage error is pretty low. Henvce the distance to the vast number of supernovae is known with a high degree of accuracy.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

But the main issue isn't radiation, its planet warming when it goes pop.

This was total nonsense the first time you said it and it will remain total nonsense however times you repeat it.

Simple mathematics can prove it is nonsense, so here goes.

Distance to the sun is 8 light minutes. The distance to Betelgeuse is 700 ly.

So let's calculate how much further Betelgeuse is from us than the sun.

Light minutes in a light year = 60x24 x 365.25 = 525960

So multiply that by 700/8 to give us how much further Betelgeuse is than the sun = 46,021,500

A supernova shines with the output of an entire galaxy, so we'll say that it will give out 200,000,000 times more energy than the sun.

Heat, like all electromagnetic radiation, diminishes according to an inverse square law, so to find out what fraction of the sun's output we would recieve on Earth from Betelgeuse we need to divide 200,000,000 by 46,021,5002

That gives us1/10,589,892

So the increase in heat the Earth would receive is a little over one ten millionth of what we receive from the sun (and that is ignoring the fact that much of the radiation generated will be higher energy radiation such as x-rays and gamma-rays, NOT infrared).

Do you really think that will be a problem?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Because of the methods used to measure near by stars there is a high percentage error. When using Cephid variables to measure the distance to globular clusters and galaxies the percentage error is pretty low. Henvce the distance to the vast number of supernovae is known with a high degree of accuracy.

This was total nonsense the first time you said it and it will remain total nonsense however times you repeat it.

Simple mathematics can prove it is nonsense, so here goes.

Distance to the sun is 8 light minutes. The distance to Betelgeuse is 700 ly.

So let's calculate how much further Betelgeuse is from us than the sun.

Light minutes in a light year = 60x24 x 365.25 = 525960

So multiply that by 700/8 to give us how much further Betelgeuse is than the sun = 46,021,500

A supernova shines with the output of an entire galaxy, so we'll say that it will give out 200,000,000 times more energy than the sun.

Heat, like all electromagnetic radiation, diminishes according to an inverse square law, so to find out what fraction of the sun's output we would recieve on Earth from Betelgeuse we need to divide 200,000,000 by 46,021,5002

That gives us1/10,589,892

So the increase in heat the Earth would receive is a little over one ten millionth of what we receive from the sun (and that is ignoring the fact that much of the radiation generated will be higher energy radiation such as x-rays and gamma-rays, NOT infrared).

Do you really think that will be a problem?

Will you stop it.

We neither know how much heat the supernova will put out or the accurate distance it is from us. Past 80 light years out then our trigonometry methods produce significant errors in the distance of further bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (IP: Staff) ·
7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Will you stop it.

We neither know how much heat the supernova will put out or the accurate distance it is from us. Past 80 light years out then our trigonometry methods produce significant errors in the distance of further bodies.

I will stop providing facts when you stop making false claims.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have repeatedly spouted nonsense. 

You clearly can not cope with even the simple arithmetic I have presented you. If you could you would be able to show the errors in my workings, if they exist(they don't). Your reply makes it clear that you can't do this.

Stop mistaking your ignorance for that of others. You have entered a battle of knowledge unarmed.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

I will stop providing facts when you stop making false claims.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have repeatedly spouted nonsense. 

You clearly can not cope with even the simple arithmetic I have presented you. If you could you would be able to show the errors in my workings, if they exist(they don't). Your reply makes it clear that you can't do this.

Stop mistaking your ignorance for that of others. You have entered a battle of knowledge unarmed.

 

I remember having this exact same discussion with him not long ago. 

He seem to one of those people who will never admit that he is wrong. Instead of being willing to learn he gets upset if you correct him.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

I will stop providing facts when you stop making false claims.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have repeatedly spouted nonsense. 

You clearly can not cope with even the simple arithmetic I have presented you. If you could you would be able to show the errors in my workings, if they exist(they don't). Your reply makes it clear that you can't do this.

Stop mistaking your ignorance for that of others. You have entered a battle of knowledge unarmed.

You haven't provided any facts, you have spouted off some numbers and are claiming them to be true. Personality wise you are also quite a frosty one arent you? You have no scientific links backing up you argument.

So lets begin. Firstly Earth is not 8 minutes from the Sun but 8 minutes and 20 seconds. Thats a significant difference. Now lets look at scientific articles for how far away Betelgeuse is. I presume you must have taken 700 light years from Wiki? If so please scroll down and read the part where it tells you about how its distance was calculated. It explains several approaches were used, and quite funnily none of them give 700 light years. I think you will find Wiki took an average of a range of estimates.

So lets expand out our search. MIT (thats a highly prestigious scientific institute) puts Betelgeuse as being 1400 light years away which is double what you are claiming - http://www.mit.edu/people/thb/betelgeuse.pdf. Then we have NASA which has it as a mere 650 light years away  https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/IRAD/IRAD-1.pdf. Then we have National Geographic which has it even less at 600 light years away -  https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/space/2019/12/giant-star-acting-strange-and-astronomers-are-buzzing. Those are 3 sources valued for their contribution towards science but if we expand our search out (I have already made my point with this so wont do that myself) you can find lots of estimates ranging from 350 to 1500 light years away. 

Estimates is the key word here because we do not have the technology to tell how far away something is with any kind of accuracy once we pass 80 light years, and even that is pushing it. The issue is we dont have sensitive enough technology to be able to make trigonometry calculations with the accuracy required. This is where there are a range of estimates for Betelgeuse.

Next lets address this - `A supernova shines with the output of an entire galaxy, so we'll say that it will give out 200,000,000 times more energy than the sun`. Erm no, I`m not letting you get away with that one. Which supernova and how big was it? What was its energy output? Which galaxy and how big was it? And what a random number of 200,000,000 to be plucked out of the air.

You can make an argument for anything when you are inventing the numbers yourself.

Edited by RabidMongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So,  the scientists were wrong?  

 

DEAB4C18-B9B7-4D48-B85A-0C5121176CC7.jpeg

Edited by Festina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, Betelgeuse could have went supernova years ago and none of us would be none the wiser.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Festina said:

So,  the scientists were wrong?  

 

DEAB4C18-B9B7-4D48-B85A-0C5121176CC7.jpeg

Is there a relevant point to this post ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Is there a relevant point to this post ?

So called Finite Fossil fuels, according to “Scientists” . 

The Earth is a livings organism, petroleum is its blood.  

 

 

Edited by Festina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Festina said:

Finite Fossil fuels.

 

So the answer to my question is no then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So the answer to my question is no then.

 

1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So the answer to my question is no then.

I updated my post.

 

Quote

So called Finite Fossil fuels, according to “Scientists” . 

The Earth is a living organism, petroleum is its blood.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Festina said:

I updated my post.

So the answer is still a no then. Atleast I don't see any connection at all to Betegeuse in your woo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So the answer is still a no then. Atleast I don't see any connection at all to Betegeuse in your woo.

They were wrong about Betelgeuse and they have wrong about other things as well.

The Connection,  It’s called conversation, and it has movement.  

Goodnight.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.