Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Sirius B

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2008 20:32 GMT
Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6
light years away how could anything on earth survived such a
blast.....

Krita started 146 milj ago and ended 86 milj years ago?

Is this correct?
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 20:38 GMT
| Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6
| light years away how could anything on earth survived such a
| blast.....

A nuclear weapon exploded over Hiroshima, Japan, on 6th August, 1945.
How could anything in the USA have survived such a blast.....

| Krita started 146 milj ago and ended 86 milj years ago?
|
| Is this correct?

No.
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2008 20:58 GMT
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> No.

Oh you are correct Androcles it was 65 miljon years ago
But the the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event marks the boundary
between the Triassic and Jurassic periods, 199.6 million years ago,
and is one of the major extinction events.

I do not know but i see the possibility for some doubts in carbon
dating, and also when it comes to put dates on events within
astronomy. I find it reasonably to beleive that Sirius B was cause to
the Triassic-Jurassic extinction.

That leave us with the question what star did go nova when the great
dinosaurs dissapeared.

So any Astronomer out there could tell me a nearby star that did go
Nova at the end of Cretaceous–Tertiary time 65 miljon years ago, that
was a pretty major extinction event.

I know they say it was an Asteroid and sure it can have been to.
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 21:26 GMT
On 12 Juli, 21:38, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> No.

Oh you are correct Androcles it was 65 miljon years ago
But the the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event marks the boundary
between the Triassic and Jurassic periods, 199.6 million years ago,
and is one of the major extinction events.

I do not know but i see the possibility for some doubts in carbon
dating, and also when it comes to put dates on events within
astronomy. I find it reasonably to beleive that Sirius B was cause to
the Triassic-Jurassic extinction.
============================================

Whoopee for you. <yawn>
Now prove it.
I find it reasonably to believe that bright green flying elephants lay their
eggs in black holes but I do not know and I can't prove it... and you
are not really interested. Let's prove Santa Claus comes down chimneys
instead, we can both believe that one.
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2008 21:49 GMT
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> - Visa citerad text -

Well "SCIENTISTS" tells that if Betelgeuse goes Nova and if it's
rotational axis aligned our way we would be in very difficult position
and alot of life on earth would actually threatened.  It is 427
lightyears away.

Wikipedia:Betelgeuse
"Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth, it is believed
that Betelgeuse's supernova would not cause a gamma ray burst in the
direction of Earth large enough to damage Earth's ecosystem even with
its relatively close proximity of 427 light years."

Now ALDEBARAN is only 65 millions away and i have a feeling that if it
go Nova we are f.cked,
Now you prove me wrong and you will not find it that easy.

So if you have a better bet for the great extinctions then supernovas
tell me.
I do not find it unreasonable that asteroids caused the great
"extinctions", and i do not find it unreasonable that supernovas did
it either.

I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were
caused by asteroids.
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 23:36 GMT
On 12 Juli, 22:26, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> - Visa citerad text -

Well "SCIENTISTS" tells that if Betelgeuse goes Nova and if it's
rotational axis aligned our way we would be in very difficult position
and alot of life on earth would actually threatened.  It is 427
lightyears away.
============================================

Wikipedia:Betelgeuse
"Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth, it is believed
that Betelgeuse's supernova would not cause a gamma ray burst in the
direction of Earth large enough to damage Earth's ecosystem even with
its relatively close proximity of 427 light years."
==============================================

Stick around sci.physics and count the cranks. Some of them write
articles for wackypedia, the encyclopaedia any crank can write.
They like to call themselves "scientists".

Now ALDEBARAN is only 65 millions away and i have a feeling that if it
go Nova we are f.cked,
Now you prove me wrong and you will not find it that easy.

==============================================
You obviously missed my point about proof, son.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are
right. The burden of proof is upon the claimant.
If I say bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes
it is up to me to prove it. Anyone can say anything they like but only
a fool would believe the nonsense.
Why do we require proof?
Well, if someone accuses you of a crime you can be thrown in jail,
but the law and common sense requires that you be given a fair trial
and the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accusation is true.
I do not believe you.
Tough, isn't it?
I didn't swallow your silly story, so what are you going to do about it?
Show me the proof.  I  don't have to prove you wrong, you have to
prove you are right.
Scientists say you are wrong, is that good enough a proof for you?
I found that very easy.
Now who is f.cked?

==============================================
So if you have a better bet for the great extinctions then supernovas
tell me.
==============================================

Bet? You want a wager? Put money up?
Ok, how much money will you deposit with a lawyer (because I'll match it)
and what are the rules for deciding the outcome?
I bet you that I can do a better job of persuading people Aldeberan
will not go nova in my lifetime or yours than you can that it will, and
I bet you that you cannot prove the great extinctions were anything to
do with novae.
BTW, the plural of "nova" is "novae", not "novas". Otherwise we'd
be saying hippopotamuses instead of hippopotami.
==============================================

I do not find it unreasonable that asteroids caused the great
"extinctions", and i do not find it unreasonable that supernovas did
it either.

================================================

I do. It is very unreasonable and indeed childish to latch on to the first
thing you think of when the true answer is not known and may never be
known. If you want to be a scientist the first thing you must learn is
how to prove what you claim, or you will simply be laughed at.

================================================
I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were
caused by asteroids.
================================================
Then you understand very little.
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 13 Jul 2008 07:53 GMT
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are
> right. The burden of proof is upon the claimant.

I think you missed my point about plausibility, i am not interested in
proving things that can not be proven. It can not be proven that the
astreroid outside Yucatan caused the extinction.

In fact it is provable by mere statistic that the great extinction is
more plausible caused by a star going nova then an impact of an
asteroid.

> If I say bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes
> it is up to me to prove it.

I do not see there is any reason for you to try to start to prove it,
so far no elephants layed eggs. But you can rest assured that more
than billions of planets been annhilated by novae.

> Anyone can say anything they like but only
> a fool would believe the nonsense.

Well if you think planets being annhilated by novae prove it.

> Why do we require proof?
>  Well, if someone accuses you of a crime you can be thrown in jail,
> but the law and common sense requires that you be given a fair trial
> and the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
> accusation is true.

Yes it is all about reasonable doubt, and it come out in favour of
electromagnetic disturbances caused by novae every time, when you
compare it with the plausibility for asteroid impacts.

> I do not believe you.
> Tough, isn't it?

Well the dark ages maybe really was the dark ages, but you would not
know. You only been around since 88. A little self inquiery maybe
would not hurt.

> I didn't swallow your silly story, so what are you going to do about it?
> Show me the proof.  I  don't have to prove you wrong, you have to
> prove you are right.

No i do not since theories about the great extinction is not provable,
only plausible you would know that if you had higher IQ.

> Scientists say you are wrong, is that good
> enough a proof for you?

No actually is not.

> I found that very easy.

Well if your into to sheepish thinking, it is easy to be a square and
follow into mainstream thinking.

I only care about what is most plausible, since no proofs is possible

> Now who is f.cked?

The one with the *BOT* like behaviour, not the thinking programmer.

> ==============================================
> So if you have a better bet for the great extinctions then supernovas
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>  I bet you that I can do a better job of persuading people Aldeberan
> will not go nova in my lifetime or yours than you can that it will, and

Well i am sure you can you have alot of mainstream scientist on your
side, it do not however make their story more plausible.

> I bet you that you cannot prove the great extinctions were anything to
> do with novae.
> BTW, the plural of "nova" is "novae", not "novas". Otherwise we'd
> be saying hippopotamuses instead of hippopotami.

You are correct again Androcles, and you can not prove that asteroids
cause them.
I do have the more plausible theory from a statistic perspective
though.

> ==============================================
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> thing you think of when the true answer is not known and may never be
> known.

I guess you prefer to not know, and have no wish to find out the most
important issue in history of earth. I however really want to know i
look for plausible answers and when i found the most plausible answer
i kling to it until another more plausible shows up.

No asteroids is not more plausible.

>If you want to be a scientist the first thing you must learn is
> how to prove what you claim, or you will simply be laughed at.

I am not a scientist i am however a very sharp mind for sure the
sharpest you met.

> ================================================
> I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were
> caused by asteroids.
> ================================================
> Then you understand very little.- Dölj citerad text -

No actually i understand quite alot about the psyche.

> - Visa citerad text -
Androcles - 13 Jul 2008 12:36 GMT
On 13 Juli, 00:36, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are
> right. The burden of proof is upon the claimant.

I think you missed my point about plausibility, i am not interested
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor am I. Goodbye.

*plonk*
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 13 Jul 2008 16:10 GMT
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
>
> - Visa citerad text -

Good then you agree we can not find proof of what caused the great
extinctions, only what about what is plausible to have caused them.

You go with the giant coconut theory, a strawmen like myself prefer a
more plausible solution, like stars going nova sending radiation and
particles disrupting earths magnetic field causing radiation death,
tectonic mayhem and volcano and earthquake havoc. This was followed by
a winter so called it make a nuclear winter look like a roman hot spa.

There seem to be a crack in the coconut theory, oh let me see using my
crystal ball...

A (gigant coconut) exploded over (Yucatan, Mexico, on 6th August,
251.4 million years BC.

" It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96
percent of all marine species[3] and 70 percent of terrestrial
vertebrate species becoming extinct; it is the only known mass
extinction of insects.[4] Because so much biodiversity was lost, the
recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other
extinction events."

How could anything in the Asia have survived such a blast.....
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2008 00:26 GMT
On Jul 12, 11:53 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 186 lines]
>
> > - Visa citerad text -

Can't help but notice how nice you're being to these incest mutated
clones of something worse off than Hitler.

Your supernova considerations are in fact far more likely than
anything else that's mainstream published and continually hyped as the
most likely one and only cause.

-    Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 14 Jul 2008 22:24 GMT
> On Jul 12, 11:53 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 199 lines]
>
> - Visa citerad text -

Well i actually hope to get some education and help of them one day.
It may sound scary ai/but bots will in a near future take over the
educational system.
They are far better on analyse weakness in reasoning and spot origin
of problems.
And i see with pleasure that they already taken over the mathematical
area, they will be excellent when it come to construct proofs and pick
false proofs apart by logic and reasoning. Changes in mathematic will
come.

AI's still seem to lack a bit of imagination when it come to put
different information areas together, so development of strategies
imitating imagination is required.

I guess in this area the human brain really is a black box a random
oracle, where we get our ideas will always be shaded in clouds.
although strategies for reasoning and information collection will be
studied and implemented.

There seem to be reason in the random information puzzling, maybe
behind the mad oracle is nonlocal synaps activity where information
travel within electromagnetic fields to be picked up by neurons.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 13 Jul 2008 04:34 GMT
Dear jonas.thornvall:

...
> I understand though that it give more comfort
> beleiving that they were caused by asteroids.

I believe it is the vast quantity of soil upset, and the layer of
increased iridium that occurs about the time of the extinction
that makes them think that.  A GRB won't do that.

But whatever "Chicken Little" thing you want to want to waste
your creative thought on...

David A. Smith
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 13 Jul 2008 07:25 GMT
On 13 Juli, 05:34, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
> Dear jonas.thornvall:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> David A. Smith

As you know there been more then one great exstinction, and if you
think a star going nova in our neigbourhood will not affect us you
better think again.

What is childish is to think that asteroids who's course was set
billion of years ago hit us again and again. Most stellar body's have
had their course set billion of years
and the craters after asteroids on moon or earth did not happen during
time earth been inhabited.

We know of many big catastrophes on earth that both caused floods
earthquakes and during the last 10 000 years, that affected mankind
worldwide. Now if you want to blame these on asteroids you surely are
a fool.

And if you in fact conclude that the only reason for the upset soil
and Irdium is due to  an Asteroid your not that brightest star on the
sky. A large disturbance of the electromagnetic field  probably would
cause alot of havoc to the tectonal plates witch in turn would cause
earthquakes and vulcano activities to go skyrocket. And probably
totally darken our skies. Now you think again about what caused the
Iridium layer in the soil.

And then you think again about the connection between disturbances in
the electro magnetic field earthquakes, and what may cause the
disturbances.

And about your condescening chicken little theory i don't think you
have to worry, there noone here that from a intelligence perspective
can match me. Nor human nor bot
You may certainly be more knowledgable but i worry more about your
overall sheepish behaviour and squarelike thinking.

So save your patronising comments for someone who better needs them
like a bot "Well you go think about that one too". There is only one
bot in this thread but i guess you have not noticed.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 13 Jul 2008 16:29 GMT
Dear jonas.thornvall:

...
> What is childish is to think that asteroids who's
> course was set billion of years ago hit us again
> and again. Most stellar body's have had their
> course set billion of years

Tunguska could have been such a strike.

There have been strikes observed on other planets in our solar
system.  If comet Shoemaker Levy 9 had struck Earth, you and I
could not have had this conversation "today".

Apophis has been of recent concern.

The skies have not been swept clean.

Usually when something goes to failure; it is "bad luck" *and*
"bad planning",  "nuclear winter" *and* "no way to regulate
internal body temperature".  There is no reason there could not
be two blows that accomplished any deed.

David A. Smith
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2008 00:16 GMT
On Jul 12, 11:25 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 13 Juli, 05:34, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> billion of years ago hit us again and again. Most stellar body's have
> had their course set billion of years

That's 100% correct, at least per given cosmic or galactic life cycle.

> and the craters after asteroids on moon or earth did not happen during
> time earth been inhabited.

You'd better think that one through again, especially since Earth w/
moon is never going to see another ice-age.

btw, most of those posting here in Usenet/newsgroups are devout
pretend-Atheists with ulterior motives and hidden agendas.  Their kind
of topic/author stalking and bashings are orchestrated on behalf of
being very protective of their Zionist/Nazi DARPA.
-    Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
gb6724@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 03:27 GMT
On Jul 12, 2:49 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were
> caused by asteroids.

30 thousand years ago the core of our galaxy burped a few million
solar flares,
left the core of the galaxy empty. The core of our galaxy emits
millions
of times less radiation then the core of other galaxies.

On top of it the magnitude of the flare not weakens as it exist the
galactic
system through its disk but escape flare velocity builds. It moves
just
below the speed of light and the event was just spotted a few years
ago.

All the prediction for a flare passing us for a thousand years (500
years of heating just begun and 500 years of cooling period) is
found at:
www.geocities.com/gmbajszar/BreakPedalEffect.htm

This radiation is nothing more than an immense heat source
that heats up any gas in its way, where gas flares up. With the
solar rays it is hard to detect this energy other than what we
see: An instantly disappearing Norther ice cap. It was shown
that the disappearing Ozone layer actually cools the Antarctic,
though green house gasses don't build up there as a result.

So. Imagine 500 years of accelerating heat. It was determined
that since the flare passed through in 10 years a gas cloud
300 light years from the core of the galaxy, that we are 100 times
further away and the event instead of 10 years will pass us by
in 1000 years, and the heat is not as instantly heating as it
was in so close proximity to the core of the galaxy.

What we will see is that all predictions for global warming come
in outpasting growth of heat. It was thought that the northern
ice cap would disappear by 2040, but only the next year that
number quickly moved down to 2012.

It may happen just based on all the dooms day predictions online
for December 21, 2012, that a huge shiny radiation burst will hit us,
and we are only experiencing the pre-heat.
gb6724@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 03:42 GMT
> > > > | Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6
> > > > | light years away how could anything on earth survived such a
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
> for December 21, 2012, that a huge shiny radiation burst will hit us,
> and we are only experiencing the pre-heat.

There is a way to survive. Must remain in an airplane on the dark side
of the planet for a 1000 years. New perpetual motion machine
technologies from around the world emerged, also found on my
web page at www.geocities.com/gmbajszar/BreakPedalEffect.htm
that is capable of running an airplane permanently, but must
have all ability to maintain and repair the craft as it goes, with
minimal time for occasional landings. Food is grown on board,
water is taken from the air's humidity. Another place is deep under
ground, of course the more happy solution. Some may survive.
gb6724@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 04:32 GMT
On Jul 16, 8:42 pm, "gb6...@yahoo.com" <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > | Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6
> > > > > | light years away how could anything on earth survived such a
[quoted text clipped - 102 lines]
> water is taken from the air's humidity. Another place is deep under
> ground, of course the more happy solution. Some may survive.

My theory talks of rotational energy in the core of the galaxy
reaching
escape energy that splits mass because rotation in the core of the
galaxy speeded up. This happens when the galaxy contracts suddenly
for some reason, like before explosions things tend to contract in
to dark for a second and then light. Once rotational energies reached
for ability to escape from the core, and here put away all Einstein's
theories, the escape energy accelerates all the way to the outer
galaxy thereof and slowing the galaxy's rotation in the process.
Any mass escaping from a rotating galaxy slows the rotational
energies of the galaxy. All rotational energies are trapped within,
and there is a simple mechanism at the core to reach an energy
threshold to release mass based on a fast core rotation whose
speed depend on the rotation of the galaxy. All or some weight
suddenly lifts. All this is a weight effect of things, the stuff
encapsulating gravitation and the stuff behind dark matter.

The escaping energy traveling near the speed of light from the
center of the galaxy measured 10 years to pass as a flare at
300 years from the core of the galaxy. We don't know any
other details of when and how if this flare arrives, I only calculated
it must accelerate on its way out while the galaxy must slow
down in rotation as it happens with release of energy conditions
in rotating bodies. An escaping body from the center
is able to out-perform all the galaxy's gravitational disk
and interacts with the galaxy's rotating forces as it escapes
and carries strange inertia with sufficient escape dynamics
to speed up out of control thereafter to the outer perimeters
of our galaxy as this mass leaves the core. The galaxy may
come to a rotational stop depending on the mass of this
escaping weight source. Without a central mass things may
also loose rotating balance and most of the dark matter in
our galaxy would leave and our galaxy sucked up chaotically
by the approaching Andromeda that sucked off over 500 million
stars from our galaxy. The trail of stars reach out 20 of our
galaxy distances already toward the approaching Andromeda.
The lighter galaxy contracted and probably caused the
central burst of energy from the contracting effect that
triggered a central difusing of mass, not a catastrophic
form explosion as a Supernova, but things are highly heated
in the center of the galaxy. More than heat, what accelerates
is speed. The lifting of weights out of the galaxy core happens
smoothly like a rising skyrocketing elevator or capsule
gaining speed in a weight lifting accelerating form permanently in
release mode and not explosively released and not with the
speed of light and max explosion effects. The
acceleration of escape speed continues from that moment on
because the galaxy rotates. This escape energy is directly
intertied with the galaxy's rotation. Our galaxy had a balanced
equilibrium as our galaxy formed to its size and balance, but
the equilibrium was disbalanced by the approaching Andromeda.

An escaping core mass is the opposite effect to galactic jets where
things press inward rather than build an outward escaping force
upon which the jets silence. Early galaxies had lot of jets
and things moved more heavily and dark matter was in
much higher concentrations. But as dark matter weakened,
jets queted in later galaxies and lighter, speedier distributions
formed. But with speedier and wider distributions, cores get released,
especially when looser in galactic structure due to accelerated
conditions.
With accelerated conditions mass swings out wider and the core's
rotation speeds up. When another galaxy stretches our galaxy,
that happens that the core speeds up, then the escape energy
for the central weight happens, the opposite direction escape of
energy to jets, not inward crashed but outward along the disk
released burst of inner energies. A burst not from pressing but
from pulling, stretching, and our galaxy was stretched.

This is based on my understanding that jets don't form as
side residue to mass flowing inward black holes, and it was
shown that the magnetic fields of jets don't correspond in shape
to black hole theories, and it was suggested that the black
hole theory is returned to the drawing boards because the
numbers didn't add up. The jet burst is based on a full and
direct flow of mass, and the same opposite effect releases
if not most of the central mass weight in the galaxy at
once in two split directions. All of it, and this is shown
by the mysterious condition that unlike in other spiral
galaxies, the core of our galaxy now emits millions of times
weaker radiation signals. All that mass that would be
blamed for producing radiation escaped and heading our
direction.

When the flare would get here is unknown.
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2008 00:05 GMT
On Jul 12, 12:58 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> I know they say it was an Asteroid and sure it can have been to.

As the 6+ solar mass of Sirius B went red giant and eventually flashed
over into becoming the little but dense white dwarf, whereas that
entire process lost track of at least 5 solar masses, with one of
those solar mass units likely picked up by Sirius A.

There's also a darn good chance we were a whole lot closer to the
Sirius star/solar system at that time.  So, the terrestrial trauma
caused by such a nearby event could very well have represented the
primary cause and subsequent demise of such large scale forms of life
which existed that that time.

What do you understand about the tidal radius holding onto various
planets and their moons?

-    Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Steve Willner - 16 Jul 2008 22:25 GMT
> Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago,

How do you know that?

> it is only 8.6 light years away

How far away was it 120 Myr ago?

> how could anything on earth survived such a blast.....

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt
gives some estimates of SN effects.  The Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Impact_on_Earth
seems pretty reasonable, but I haven't read it in detail, let alone
checked it.

With regard to a later post in this topic, what evidence is there
that gamma rays from supernovae are beamed?

Signature

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123     swillner@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement.  Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.