Quantcast

Betelgeuse Star.

Glostarz

Active Member
It’s the size of Betelgeuse that gets me.

It’s generally understood that the Sun is pretty huge, but if Betelgeuse was at the centre of our system, then the outer edge would be somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn!

That’s why it can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, because it is just THAT large!
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Remember, likewise the Aliens living on a habitable planet nearby, looking at earth thru their telescopes would see us as we were around 650 years ago.

 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Oh. So the "following through" comment wasn't about doing a wet fart 😳
As a gentleman it's an area I don't wish to comment on.

It's just such a shame, due to distance, unless something amazing gets discovered, we're never going to be able to explore the galaxy :(
 

nvingo

Well-known Member
Only with the naked eye. When we look through a telescope you are seeing that light sooner.
You're really not.
Total distance from source to eye, is the same whether or not part of that distance is made up of a front lens, hollow tube and eyepiece.
It actually takes (immeasurably) fractionally longer if the telescope used has a reflector, or indeed an electronic imaging device between the hollow tube and viewer's eye.
 

Thug

Distinguished Member
If anyone has VR then I recommend Titans Of Space.
Its an 'on rails' journey through space, but gives a great sense of scale.

I always remember reading a book (I think it was Bill Bryson's A Short History Of Nearly Everything) where he talks about putting things into scale, and said if the sun was a beachball then the earth would be a pea 3 miles away from it (or something like that).
 

GaseousClay

Distinguished Member
You're really not.
Total distance from source to eye, is the same whether or not part of that distance is made up of a front lens, hollow tube and eyepiece.
It actually takes (immeasurably) fractionally longer if the telescope used has a reflector, or indeed an electronic imaging device between the hollow tube and viewer's eye.
This is almost word for word the response I was about to make. I was also going to say that through a conventional refraction type telescope the light would also slow down (immeasurably) as the light is bent through the lenses
 

thedoswells

Well-known Member
I like the fact that you can fly round the earth in a passenger jet in a couple of days, about 6 months round the sun, and for the largest known stars like UY scuti, probably over 1000 years... urgggghhh
 

SteveCritten

Distinguished Member
You're really not.
Total distance from source to eye, is the same whether or not part of that distance is made up of a front lens, hollow tube and eyepiece.
It actually takes (immeasurably) fractionally longer if the telescope used has a reflector, or indeed an electronic imaging device between the hollow tube and viewer's eye.
[/QUOTE]
Even the ones on satellites on the edge of the solar system? 😉.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you flew at twice the speed of light away from the earth for 24 hours, then stopped, got your telescope out and looked back at the earth you could watch yourself yesterday.
 

nvingo

Well-known Member
Even the ones on satellites on the edge of the solar system? 😉.
Just to unconfuse anyone trying to take in this comment; the light from the distant object, would be converted by satellite telescope's imaging device into electronic data, which would then be transmitted on electromagnetic signals which themselves travel at the speed of light to a receiver on Earth to be viewed live and stored. So allowing for electronic processing delay, yes about the same time, depending on the relative positions of the object, space telescope and Earth receiver.
 

nvingo

Well-known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you flew at twice the speed of light away from the earth for 24 hours, then stopped, got your telescope out and looked back at the earth you could watch yourself yesterday.
You would also see yourself as a streak travelling to your new viewing position. ;)
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you flew at twice the speed of light away from the earth for 24 hours, then stopped, got your telescope out and looked back at the earth you could watch yourself yesterday.
I have a hangover and you've just frazzled what's left of my brain :laugh:

In light of this thread I've decided there's only one film I can watch now tonight - Interstellar.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Yep, the further you head from the earth and then look back at the earth, it will take time for the light from the earth to reach you so you will the earth in the past.
 

Cobb

Distinguished Member
I find astronomy fascinating. Time and space, the numbers are boggling. I struggle to comprehend a lot of it and/or retain the information. I went to a Brian Cox lecture a few years ago and whilst completely absorbed and fascinated at the time - I couldn’t tell you anything about the lecture now :confused:
 

thedoswells

Well-known Member
I find astronomy fascinating. Time and space, the numbers are boggling. I struggle to comprehend a lot of it and/or retain the information. I went to a Brian Cox lecture a few years ago and whilst completely absorbed and fascinated at the time - I couldn’t tell you anything about the lecture now :confused:
Betelgeuse tiny compared to the milky way
Milky Way small compared to ic1101
ic1101 tiny compared to the observable universe
observable universe tiny if we do indeed live in a finite multiverse
all these things effectively non existent compared to TREE(3)
.. and supposedly some infinities are bigger than others.

my head is about to fall off...
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Just to unconfuse anyone trying to take in this comment; the light from the distant object, would be converted by satellite telescope's imaging device into electronic data, which would then be transmitted on electromagnetic signals which themselves travel at the speed of light to a receiver on Earth to be viewed live and stored. So allowing for electronic processing delay, yes about the same time, depending on the relative positions of the object, space telescope and Earth receiver.
Is this not where you would use a Sub Space Communications Channel to get over this problem?
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
I find astronomy fascinating. Time and space, the numbers are boggling. I struggle to comprehend a lot of it and/or retain the information. I went to a Brian Cox lecture a few years ago and whilst completely absorbed and fascinated at the time - I couldn’t tell you anything about the lecture now :confused:
If your find this tricky, how about the concept that many feel in that nothing exists until your observe it?
The act of observation itself sets the state of the thing you are looking at, and if you are not there to observe it, then it does not yet exist.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

Panasonic launches SC-HTB600 and SC-HTB400 soundbars
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Panasonic launches HX940 and HX800 4K LCD TVs for 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Elipson launches 3230 loudspeaker at Bristol Hi-Fi Show
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 17th February 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom