The Death Star, Pending Supernova Explosion Threatens Earth

Or it could have happened 3,259 years, 11 months and 3 weeks ago . . .

How many other known objects have blown up in the past several thousand years? How far away were they? For some reason the star of Bethlehem comes to mind. Assuming some reasonable speed given by the event, and if it was even headed in this direction, how long for the debris field to reach earth?

There is no "debris feild."

For all the fancy photographs of supernova and nebula, one must remember the sheer scale being discussed. If you look at a picture of a nebula, even the densest of images will have many millions of kilometers before the cloud becomes opaque; this should give a pretty good indication of the size and density of the "clouds." Despite their big fluffy apearance, they are still barely less of a vaccuum than the rest of space.

It is the small, high energy particles and radiation which would get here and (according to the article) cause some damage.

You mean if a star blows up and takes several planets out with it that there will be no debris left over?

Essentially, yes, Atsidi. Pretty much everything in the neighborhood gets reduced to atoms. Far enough out a few dust particles might survive, but by the time the wave front got here they would be so widely dispersed the probability of any striking the earth would be close enough to zero as to make no difference. The forces and distances involved are truly, well, astronomical. The real hazard at this distance comes from the radiation, sub-atomic particles in particular.

So where does all the stuff that we get powdered with all the time come from? This sort of stuff has been going on for a long time as I understand it. Asteroids, comets and such. Still don't see any reason to get concerned about this one. Chances are that I and most, if not all the human race will be long gone by the time anything from the event in question makes it this far anyway.

Some of it comes from interstellar space (lots of stars out there), but most of it comes from the outer reaches of our own solar system, a veritable junkyard of leftover debris from its formation. graphic: http://www.myastrologybook.com/OortCloud10q8x7.jpg

At a mere 3260 ly, should make for quite a light show.

That star actually is aligned with us. Saw a special on this very system on the History Channel about 6 months ago.

All the GRB's are so distant, I don't know if there are many stars left that can pull one off. Betelgeuse will go type II and form a neutron star or black hole. Type IIs aren't as bright as 1as because most of the energy remains in the collapsed core, where as everything is 'sploded in 1as. There are remnants as close as 650 light years, so we shouldn't be afraid of many things further than that.

the star may explode with force of 20 billion billion billion megatons of TNT...

If 3260 light years isn't far enough away to survive a nuclear blast of that magnitude... how far is far enough away? People survived the Hiroshima blast just 12 miles away, of course that was also only a 20 kiloton blast... but still.

actually, let's do some math... if a 20 KT blast is survivable at 12 miles, then a 200 KT blast is survivable at 120 miles... and a 2 GT blast at 1200 miles, and a 20 GT blast at 12,000 miles... and we can keep going now by simply adding the proper number of 0's which should be 27 more... so a blast of this size should be survivable at 12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. Hmm, that's a long ways away... but now let's see how far 3260 light years really is... one light year is 5,878,630,000,000 miles, so multiply that by 3260 and we get 19,164,333,800,000,000 miles... ok, yeah we're screwed if this thing ever goes off.

Too bad really. It would be SOO neat to watch it if our faces weren't melting off at the time.

It's not linear.

For one, a nuclear blast in earth's atmosphere cannot be compared to one in vacuum. Further, the shock and debris field would not be a factor in assessing the damage. The flood of gamma ray radiation would be the only thing to worry about.

CarlZup, yeah I know, but it works well enough... we don't have to worry too much about exact accuracy when we're talking about such a huge difference between the survivability zone and how close we are. It's like arguing the semantics between standing an inch from the epicenter of a nuclear blast, or standing 2 inches from the epicenter.

Also, remember that electromagnetic radiation degrades at the square of the distance. That's (among the reasons) why you start to get diminishing marginal returns on progressively larger bombs. The US nuclear arsenal pretty much levels out at 250 kilotons for exactly that reason, much larger and you're making poor use of your fuel.

But yea, the real concern is the density of gamma radiation. A supernova means a Gamma Ray Burst and that more or less sterilizes a good chunk of the surrounding galaxy. If there's a GRB anywhere close to us we're pretty much doomed.

Inverse square rule: Halve the distance, 4X the effect; Double the distance, 1/4 the effect. Applies to gravity and electromagnetism.

Killfile gets the kewpie doll on this one.

Whoza? Waza? Huh?

It's not the immediate effects we would have to worry about. Going underground is good for the short term, but in the meantime the ozone layer is decimated, plant life dies off, a mass extinction event is highly probable. The biosphere would no longer support abundant life for a very long time. To survive, the human race would need to greatly reduce their numbers, retreat into protective domes, or some other types of enclosures with self-sustaining biospheres. Populating the asteroid belt, the moon and Mars with colonies could ensure survival of an extinction-level event (ELE).

Finally - true global warming I can believe in!

It's ironic that you should say that since this is an example of research using poor data analysis that was subsequently hyped up by a major media outlet. Basically, it's exactly what GW skeptics accuse the climate scientists of doing. Of course, this is not a consensus among many scientists with mountains of research behind them, it was one study that has apparently been pounced on immediately for it's inaccuracy.

Actually, Jawil, a direct hit by a Gamma Ray Burst at such "close" range will do just the sort of damage described in #9.1, above as well as immediate effects to those directly exposed(radiation sickness, cancers). However, this particular star is highly unlikely to produce such a phenomenon as it is not nearly massive enough. Budzy, thus far "long duration" GRB's last some tens of seconds, most are in the fractional second range. Even so, The damage will be catastrophic and there will be no warning.

Actually, Jawil, a direct hit by a Gamma Ray Burst at such "close" range will do just the sort of damage described in #9.1,

I am not disputing the damage of a GRB. I was pointing out that this star will not produce one, as you mention. The fact that the researcher used a GRB in his calculations was the problem I alluded to and was what made his colleagues challenge his findings. Read the article linked in #3.

It's ironic that you should say that since this

jawill11,

Well sitting at home with the kids off of school because of the snow and freezing my @$$ off it was ironic. Could use an extra 10 degrees or a stack of the CRU research to burn in the fireplace.

Good thing CRU and thousands of other scientists did not make predictions about the phenomenon of Budzy's Living Room Warming. They tend to deal with bigger issues like global trends.

They tend to deal with bigger issues like global trends.

jawill11 - the CRU tends to deal in fictional events. They were too busy faking the data to get a government funds then actual science.

The only 'bigger' issue the CRU is concerned about is the next buck.

Need to get with the new trend of actual science and true peer review research and stop thinking you can save the planet by taking my money and give it to someone in Peru.

The fact is the CRU has been exposed as a total fraud. Probably the same reason NASA won't release their data - they haven't created it yet.

the CRU tends to deal in fictional events. They were too busy faking the data to get a government funds then actual science.

Completely untrue. They never faked any data, despite what some petroleum companies and their paid hacks have stated.

I hear ya Paul. Applying GRB calculations to a star that may or may not attain Chandrasekhar's Limit is merely an exercise in sensationalism. Most reputable astrophysical sources agree that only stars well above said limit can produce GRB's. In any case, the possible supernova of T Pyxidis (sic) is millions of years away and I won't get my knickers in a twist over it.