...rippling bands across the ground from atmospheric turbulence, razor-sharp shadows everywhere, with prominent diffraction rings around the ones from faraway objects. And a flaming rainbow streak, blue at the top, shading down through green to red, as it rises or sets in a clear sky.
If my calculations are right, it won't burn your eyes; it would be roughly equivalent to looking into a 4-microwatt laser, not nearly strong enough to be dangerous. A 10-inch telescope could collimate it into a 5-mW beam, bright enough to see passing through the air, if only it were dark outside. The Palomar reflector would collect closer to 2 watts, enough to start fires and such.
If it happened this month, most everybody north of the Antarctic Circle would be cruelly cheated. Any time from August through April, though, it should be visible in the night sky from just about anywhere but that same Antarctic. And yes, I'd be willing to drag myself out of bed pre-dawn for this.
Not that cruelly cheated -- it should be plenty visible in daylight, even at its closest to the sun. SN 1054 was visible in daylight for three weeks, and was ten times farther away.
In your calculations you forgot the small factoid that it may be another thousand years before it goes supernova. It has brightened considerably in the past only to dim back down. It was Fox news (fair and balanced) that mentions it going supernova, not the paper presented at the meeting that merely states a 15% shrinkage and nothing else.
So,you might would have to drag/dig yourself out of the ground to see the Betelgeuse supernova. And most zombies I know about are more interested in brains than astronomy.
In your calculations you forgot the small factoid that it may be another thousand years before it goes supernova. It has brightened considerably in the past only to dim back down. It was Fox news (fair and balanced) that mentions it going supernova, not the paper presented at the meeting that merely states a 15% shrinkage and nothing else.
Well, yes. It's been known as a variable for a very long time, and while I don't know how long its diameter has been monitored, it seems likely that its changes in brightness would be accompanied by changes in size. A 15% change in diameter isn't quite so impressive against a history of twofold changes in brightness.
In fact, here's [solstation.com] an article claiming that its diameter varies from 550 to 920 times that of the Sun (alas, the link the article cites is dead). They might mean, though, that measurements using
If it happened this month, most everybody north of the Antarctic Circle would be cruelly cheated. Any time from August through April, though, it should be visible in the night sky from just about anywhere but that same Antarctic. And yes, I'd be willing to drag myself out of bed pre-dawn for this.
I don't think you're grasping the timescales here. Article says:
Over a span of 15 years, the star's diameter seems to have declined from 11.2 to 9.6 AU
What a show if it does... (Score:5, Interesting)
...rippling bands across the ground from atmospheric turbulence, razor-sharp shadows everywhere, with prominent diffraction rings around the ones from faraway objects. And a flaming rainbow streak, blue at the top, shading down through green to red, as it rises or sets in a clear sky.
If my calculations are right, it won't burn your eyes; it would be roughly equivalent to looking into a 4-microwatt laser, not nearly strong enough to be dangerous. A 10-inch telescope could collimate it into a 5-mW beam, bright enough to see passing through the air, if only it were dark outside. The Palomar reflector would collect closer to 2 watts, enough to start fires and such.
If it happened this month, most everybody north of the Antarctic Circle would be cruelly cheated. Any time from August through April, though, it should be visible in the night sky from just about anywhere but that same Antarctic. And yes, I'd be willing to drag myself out of bed pre-dawn for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a sec (Score:3, Interesting)
In your calculations you forgot the small factoid that it may be another thousand years before it goes supernova. It has brightened considerably in the past only to dim back down. It was Fox news (fair and balanced) that mentions it going supernova, not the paper presented at the meeting that merely states a 15% shrinkage and nothing else.
So,you might would have to drag/dig yourself out of the ground to see the Betelgeuse supernova. And most zombies I know about are more interested in brains than astronomy.
Re: (Score:2)
In your calculations you forgot the small factoid that it may be another thousand years before it goes supernova. It has brightened considerably in the past only to dim back down. It was Fox news (fair and balanced) that mentions it going supernova, not the paper presented at the meeting that merely states a 15% shrinkage and nothing else.
Well, yes. It's been known as a variable for a very long time, and while I don't know how long its diameter has been monitored, it seems likely that its changes in brightness would be accompanied by changes in size. A 15% change in diameter isn't quite so impressive against a history of twofold changes in brightness.
In fact, here's [solstation.com] an article claiming that its diameter varies from 550 to 920 times that of the Sun (alas, the link the article cites is dead). They might mean, though, that measurements using
Re: (Score:2)
If it happened this month, most everybody north of the Antarctic Circle would be cruelly cheated. Any time from August through April, though, it should be visible in the night sky from just about anywhere but that same Antarctic. And yes, I'd be willing to drag myself out of bed pre-dawn for this.
I don't think you're grasping the timescales here. Article says:
Over a span of 15 years, the star's diameter seems to have declined from 11.2 to 9.6 AU
All right, all right. (Score:2)
I should have said "If it happened around this time of the year".
No, I'm not counting my supernovae before they hatch.