supernova

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:58:53 +0000

Well, we have one in Australia. It'll be summer there.

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:42:37 +0000

I'd volunteer TickTock to be the host, but 12/31 at his place is likely to be cold. We need a member in Hawaii!!

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:41:30 +0000

Welcome Back! We've missed you.

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:30:39 +0000

Hi Bryan,
Thanks for your nice comment. That would be a fitting finale for the 2012hoax project.

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:49:52 +0000

thanks, i think you guys are an incredible group of people, and are doing something great for the benefit of everybody.keep it up!
i hope you plan a huge new years party on december 31st 2012

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:41:05 +0000

I knew that it would be only a matter of time before this report finally had some sort of adverse affect on those who are already wary or afraid of the rumors and theories surrounding 2012.

By the way; Hello, Bryan.

Astro and Andy both are correct, there's really nothing to worry about with this star finally dying.

As Astro had also stated, the calculations were also incorrect which only contributes to the controversy to come and also controversy that I'm absolutely not looking forward to facing at any point in time in the near future.

On an off-topic note: Hello, everyone. Guess who's back. :)

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:52:55 +0000

Press releases are generally not written by the scientists. However, it appears that the scientist in this case (Sion) made a mistake in his calculations, and used the radiation figures from a much larger type of explosion called a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB). If one of those happened within 3000 light years (which it does not appear that it could, there are no candidate stars in that range) then it could damage the earth's atmosphere (i.e., strip the ozone layer). It could not "wipe us out" as the Telegraph's article said.

Re: supernova

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:06:25 +0000

Well, not only that, but look at this snippet from that article:

During Sion's presentation, he was challenged by one of his peers in the audience, Prof. Alex Fillipenko from Berkeley Astronomy Department. Apparently Sion had possibly miscalculated the damage that could be caused by a T Pyxidis supernova.

It seems that Sion had used data for a far more deadly gamma-ray burst (GRB) exploding 3,260 light-years from Earth, not a supernova. T Pyxidis certainly isn't expected to produce a GRB.

Re: supernova

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:46:09 +0000

Not something worth worrying about, since it'll only happen in 10 million years.
http://news.discovery.com/space/will-earth-really-be-wiped-out-by-a-local-supernova.html

supernova

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:36:23 +0000

regarding NOVA T PYXIDIS, how much effect can this have on your planet? and also how long does it actually take to become a supernova?
i hope 3000 light years seems to be VERY far away to affect us in any way..
i hope it's just some dumb mistake the press or that scientist made..
i havent posted a thread before, so if it's repeated twice, i'm sorry..
thank you for your attention and you guys are AWESOME!