(Ok, other than 1000 years old and possibly one of the youngest in the galaxy, something about that statement caught me strange. the Wired article was worded just as I entered it. 2600 lys away and a 1000 years old. Do you see yet what has me going....ahhhhh what??? Let me explain...and where does my logic fall down? Light travels at light speed, for the most part right? When the super-nova blew, light traveled from it to us. Said star is 26000 LY, we are not interested so much in distance but in time 26,000 years time to be exact. So how can something that blew 26,000 years ago be anything but 26,000 years old? )
Oddities in age not withstanding, W49B is still an odd creature. Looking at it's shape it is evident that the collapse and release of matter was not uniform. You can see from the picture that instead of a uniform globe, the super-nova left huge spikes at what may have been it's poles.
Also, data gathered from the Chandra X-Ray telescope:
- only half of it showed concentrations of iron while sulfur and silicon were spread evenly throughout. This type of explosion, known as a bipolar supernova, has never been seen before in the galaxy.
Chandra can also look "inside" of the nebula cloud:
- Intermediate-mass stars will give rise to neutron stars — heavy, compact objects that emit copious amounts of X-rays or radio pulses. Since these signals are not present, scientists suggest that the star was massive enough to continue the collapse all the way to a black hole.
Read the complete Wired article here
5 comments:
I wasn't going to touch this when I saw it. Glad you did though.
I may have an explanation, provided they didn't really write that up wrong which was my first impression. Also why I stayed away from this one, was my own idea about it, and I am so going to catch hell here on this one, without doubt.
I've always stated, and had a few arguments over how fast time moves. Yeah, I've been addicted to time since I was 6 and read H. G. Wells.
I have always maintained that at the time of the big bang, time already existed, but was bound and stationary within the mass that became the universe. When it went boom, time did as well, and raced out at a much faster pace than what we are experiencing now with our perception of time. That being said, let’s look at time as a shock wave. Like that of an explosion here on earth.
When there is an explosion, the shock wave hits before the actual dust or metal or whatever particles resulting from said explosion.
So, if time is a shock wave in this respect, then it moved out much faster than the rest of the universe, but would have also dragged the particles of our universe along with it.
So if this was true for the beginning of the big bang, then it would be logical to conclude that a large enough explosion, could also affect time. Not so much effect, as alter time in its general area for a short period. Everyone says light is the fastest particle in the universe, but that can't be true. Time has to be the fastest, if only by a nano particle of distance (speed), in essence over light.
It could be that this happened there, and that due to the magnitude of the explosion, and it's relatively short distance from us, that this is what occurred here.
Basically, a time dilation effect. We are living within an explosion after all, even today. The big bang is still happening. We just happen to have evolved within an explosion.
And yeah, this leads to all sorts of questions, such as what happens when the explosion finally ends. Does time end then? Can time escape a black hole unlike light? If the universe would collapse one day by one of the theories of the end, would time reverse itself. And the biggest question of all if I am correct in any of this is this. Since time pulled our universe outwards during the explosion, then does that mean that our time reality is also in existence outside of our universe, or does it simply stop, or is it destroyed at the edge.
Well there you go, attack away. At least I didn’t go into the other aspects of time such as does it even really exist at all, or a few other things.
Or maybe they just wrote it up wrong like I did once here when I had my head shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.
I mean, if it is 26,000 LY’s away, and it went boom 1,000 years ago, then there are only 2 explanations for how we could be seeing it.
1. Time went fast, real fast and pulled the light with it.
2. We have some real interesting equipment that they haven’t told us about yet, and I want to know what it is, I want to see it, and then try to steal it. At least I’m honest about it. And you all would to, so don’t try denying it.
And since my concept will be considered way out there, (and feck people, it probably is out there in left field), I’m more than happy to hear other explanations for this.
Kall, you're nothing if not inventive. Have to go with Ocam here though. Some sort of whacked typo in this case, but none of the numbers match up, so I would almost think that the writer of this article took the figures at face value and never stop to think what they were saying.
I like your idea about the shock wave and time dilation. But even you know that this is not the case. Even simple logic would say that the "gravitional" effects would fall off somewhere around half the the square of the distance. Plus if I don't miss my guess, to warp space you need huge amount of mass, localized in an infinitely small space or as professor Eisenstein put it in his energy formula, the energy needed would for all intents be the square of C for any given mass. With tongue in cheek, if one wanted to know how much energy it would take to warp space, considering mass approaches infinite as you near C and the energy needed would be infinite. so traveling an infinite speed, would require all the energy in the galaxy at least! Oh my!
I know that, but treating a serious typing mess up as actuality is a lot more fun.
Plus then I get to spout strange theories.
But I just can't figure out the thousand year typo. That's not even close to the number 26. Even missing a zero at the end is still so far off base it isn't even funny.
So I just ran with it as though it were the real case. I know my theory of the big bang and time doesn't hold here, but if, and I repeat, IF that were the case of only 1,000 years, then something went out of bounds of what we know big time.
Besides, it was a lot more fun to run with it that way, that just going by someone can't type at all, or someone doesn't know a thing about light speed, or astronomy.
I mean, 26,000 ly, doesn't equate in any manner to 1000 years here.
It also allows me to be a pretentious AH lmao. I really did try to throw some math at it (no, math and I are not on first name basis) and there is no ratio unless you want to go for the obvious of 26 to 1, but even that makes no sense, why bother to state the obvious! Now if the article said it was first seen 1000 years ago, I could have bought that, otherwise WTF over.....
Links are no problem Kall, first highlight the text you want linked, then click on the LINK in the menu above the message, you then get a window that says a bunch of crap, but one will show the text you highlighted and there will be an empty box for a url. Now if you were smart, you copied the url into clipboard and you can just CTRL-V paste it right in there, otherwise you just type in the url. otherwise we are way off topic...questions to email plz beammeuppodcast@gmail.com
Post a Comment