Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

- Collapse -
So, if the light from that star went out today, how...
May 13, 2007 5:06PM PDT

...much time would elapse before the astronomers wouldn't see it any more?

- Collapse -
I didn't see anything about how far away that star is/was..
May 13, 2007 9:06PM PDT

so, no way to tell.

- Collapse -
I wonder if the star Dragon and Pruner talked about is...
May 13, 2007 9:15PM PDT

...the same star?

- Collapse -
Don't think so.
May 13, 2007 9:39PM PDT

I wish that site gave a bit more basic info on the stars they discuss, like distance, type of star, etc.

- Collapse -
Within our own galaxy
May 14, 2007 9:32AM PDT

Since the milky way galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across, and since we are some distance away from the edge, the star in question would have to be something less than 100,000 light years away.

- Collapse -
"located in our Galaxy", so not far away at all.
May 14, 2007 2:40AM PDT

(As these things go. Happy )

As to the age, that's as accurate as the ever-popular radioactive decay system allows:
"For the first time, the age dating involved both radioactive elements in combination with the three other neutron-capture elements europium, osmium, and iridium.
'Until now, it has not been possible to measure more than a single cosmic clock for a star. Now, however, we have managed to make six measurements in this one star', says Frebel."

"Ever since the star was born, these 'clocks' have ticked away over the eons, unaffected by the turbulent history of the Milky Way. They now read 13.2 billion years.
The Universe being 13.7 billion years old, this star clearly formed very early in the life of our own Galaxy, which must also formed very soon after the Big Bang."

Myself, I thought that would be an anomaly: Great age usually means great distance from us (looking back to the beginning). All the naked eye stars (not including nebulae that appear as point sources to the naked eye) are in the Milky Way - our 'next door neighbors'!

They own some impressive optics.

- Collapse -
I don't know about, "not far away at all". I mean...
May 14, 2007 3:42PM PDT

...how many miles is 7,500 light years?

- Collapse -
how many seconds are in 7500 years?
May 15, 2007 1:01AM PDT

Multiply that times 186,000. :-}

Maybe around 733,714,200,000,000 miles. I did this kind of fast, on a calculator, so I wouldn't fully trust it.

- Collapse -
(NT) and @ 30 m.p.g.......
May 15, 2007 1:25AM PDT
- Collapse -
... you would still need to
May 15, 2007 1:29AM PDT

get a title loan on the Enterprise to afford the gas.

- Collapse -
As we scholars say,
May 15, 2007 1:18AM PDT

"a big bunch".

But 7500 isn't much relative to the distance to Andromeda, a "nearby" other galaxy.

- Collapse -
(NT) 240 light years
May 14, 2007 2:55AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) Where did you see that?
May 14, 2007 4:36AM PDT
- Collapse -
So I guess that means that for the...
May 14, 2007 1:29PM PDT

...last 100 to 200 years or so, the astronomers could have been looking at a star what isn't there. If the light from that star went out today, we would not know it in our lifetime nor our children's lifetime...and possibly in their children's life time.

- Collapse -
Exactly right. In fact, if you look at the Eta Carinae
May 15, 2007 1:23AM PDT

story on the original link site, you'll notice the scientists saying 'if Eta Carinae explodes ...'
If they're right about what's happening to it, then it certainly has exploded. Scientists are pragmatic in their language, like talking about "sunrise" and "sunset" when they know there are no such things. Happy

- Collapse -
Yep
May 15, 2007 12:59PM PDT

Possibly it could have gone out a thousand years ago, though people from Earth would be able to see the fireworks, someday.

- Collapse -
correction
May 14, 2007 3:05PM PDT

i based my previous answer on old star maps (which i mis-read)i have at home, but it didn't "click" so i went to the source and it's 7,500 light years.....


jonah "spell check isn't enough" jones

.,

- Collapse -
Oooh...now that is a few miles farther...like it would...
May 14, 2007 3:36PM PDT

...take a few millenniums before an earthling knew the light went out on that star.

- Collapse -
"old star maps"
May 15, 2007 1:26AM PDT

You need to bite the bullet and make a trip to AAA for new ones.

Perspective: We're "only" 8-plus light-minutes from our own sun, but try walking that distance.

- Collapse -
Hmmm ...
May 13, 2007 5:46PM PDT

That's a lot more than 6000 years ...


Say, don't stars burn?

Thanks for the link. Happy

- Collapse -
Here's another release from the same site:
May 13, 2007 5:57PM PDT
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-31-03.html

"Biggest Star in Our Galaxy Sits within a Rugby-Ball Shaped Cocoon
VLT Interferometer Gives Insight Into the Shape of Eta Carinae

Eta Carinae , the most luminous star known in our Galaxy, is by all standards a real monster: it is 100 times more massive than our Sun and 5 million times as luminous. This star has now entered the final stage of its life and is highly unstable. It undergoes giant outbursts from time to time; one of the most recent happened in 1841 and created the beautiful bipolar nebula known as the Homunculus Nebula (see ESO PR Photo 32a/03 ). At that time, and despite the comparatively large distance - 7,500 light-years - Eta Carinae briefly became the second brightest star in the night sky, surpassed only by Sirius."

Exciting stuff; glad it's so far away.
- Collapse -
More perspective:
May 15, 2007 1:31AM PDT

Anyone remember the "You are here" bit from Hitchhiker's Guide?