What is the opposite of a supernova

[cre8flow]

this is my first post-is there such a thing as an opposite of a supernova

and what is hydrostatic equilibrium

does it prevent a star from collapsing

lastly what is the moon considered?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

opposite of a supernova? No I don't think there's any kind of "direct" opposite thing to the supernova. The closest you could come to the opposite would be the formation of a star... I guess.

Hydrostatic equilibrium is a balance of forces. One force is due to gravity, and the other force is due to the gaseous nature of a star. The force of gravity tries to pull everything in the star towards the center. The pressure force is exerted outwards, like how the air in a balloon pushes the rubber outwards.

These two forces balance each other and the star remains stable, so yeah it prevents the star from collapsing.

The moon is considered a natural satellite.

 

[cre8flow]

thank you

i think you are right
my guess was a cloud of gas
what you said makes sense
now is there a word that describes the process of a star forming

 

[SHISHKABOB]

not really, star formation is what it's called. There is a thing called a protostar, which is what a star is before it starts fusing Hydrogen in its core.

 

[cre8flow]

i know nothing about this stuff so i was looking it up on the internet and i ran across this site-wilkapedia was somewhat helpful

when or after a supernova occurs is the star then "dead" and not considered a star

thank you for your time and answers

 

[SHISHKABOB]

a star is considered to not be a "star" anymore when nuclear fusion is no longer going on inside of it. After a supernova, a star will have stopped fusing in its core. Most stars end up as white dwarves. They are slowly cooling over time and this lasts for many billions of years, I think maybe even trillions of years, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

The life cycle of a star is highly dependent on the mass that it starts out with, wikipedia should tell you that.

 

[Drakkith]

i know nothing about this stuff so i was looking it up on the internet and i ran across this site-wilkapedia was somewhat helpful

when or after a supernova occurs is the star then "dead" and not considered a star

thank you for your time and answers

One fusion ceases inside a star it forms a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. These are known as stellar remnants, aka "dead stars".

 

[cre8flow]

all fascinating stuff

i have read a bunch of stuff now

black holes will they capture any light?and yet they are invisble to the naked eye
and so a star gives off energy and a black hole consumes energy
why is all this stuff happening
that is an argument for god i suppose
not really sure of that
it looks like the universe is doing a whole lot of creating

so i guess a supernova's opposite is a protostar-its probably the best answer

we are in a major supernova drought
the most interesting thing to me is the moment where a star is beginning to evolve from or in the nebulae
and both the death and birth phases apparently involve collapsing gravitational forces
obviously over my head

 

[Chronos]

Core collapse supernova are rare because their monster sized precursor stars are also rare. And even mammoth stars still live many millions of years before they go boom. Type 1 supernove are also rare because it takes billions of years for a white dwarf to form, they must have a fairly massive, nearby companion star [not altogether rare], and it takes many millions of years for them to steal enough material to achieve detonation mass [the Chandrasekhar limit].

 

[Drakkith]

black holes will they capture any light?and yet they are invisble to the naked eye

That depends on what you mean by "invisible". The black hole would be readily visible if there is sufficient background light for it to warp and you are close enough to it. It is true that it gives off effectively zero visible light on its own, and any infalling light that passes the even horizon can no longer escape. Any light that gets close to the event horizon, but does not pass through, has it's path altered, causing the warping of background light I mentioned.

and so a star gives off energy and a black hole consumes energy
why is all this stuff happening
that is an argument for god i suppose
not really sure of that
it looks like the universe is doing a whole lot of creating

Black holes "should" give off energy in the form of Hawking Radiation. This has yet to be observed, but it is widely accepted by most scientists.

we are in a major supernova drought
the most interesting thing to me is the moment where a star is beginning to evolve from or in the nebulae
and both the death and birth phases apparently involve collapsing gravitational forces
obviously over my head

What do you mean we are in a supernova drought?

 

[cre8flow]

it has been since 1604 since a supernova has been observed from Earth with the naked eye
500 years-now that might be a couple of seconds in stellar time but not to my own internal clock

 

[cre8flow]

sounds like group think to me-the info coming in is coming from the same telescope

a lot of people seem positive of what it is

-we still know little but still act like we understand a lot-
the definition of most human beings

 

[SHISHKABOB]

sounds like group think to me-the info coming in is coming from the same telescope

a lot of people seem positive of what it is

-we still know little but still act like we understand a lot-
the definition of most human beings

we've seen a lot of supernovae and from many different telescopes ;)

we don't need to see a supernova with the naked eye to learn anything about it, either

we see supernovae from other galaxies with telescopes and learn a lot about them that way. In fact, type 1a supernovae are one of the things that are used to determine distances to galaxies. And they were used to show that the universe has been expanding over time.

don't worry, we know a lot about them, but there is still a lot to learn

 

[cre8flow]

the creative act isn't it a thing of beauty and knowledge and thought often get in the way
so many know what is known and few create
the suspension of conscious thinking important

 

[cre8flow]

the knowing i mean black holes not supernovae

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Scientists aren't robots. Believe me when I say that science would not advance whatsoever if scientists went around assuming that they know everything already. In fact, scientists go around thinking that they know diddly squat about the universe.

Creativity and science go hand in hand. How do you think we came up with the idea of a black hole in the first place, or a supernova? If you were to go out and just look with your eyes at the sky, would it be obvious to you that a star that suddenly increased in brightness to a huge degree was a star like our own that was EXPLODING? Or that there are things like black holes?

Scientists are very creative people, just not in the same way that an artist is. It's a different kind of creativity.

 

[Drakkith]

the creative act isn't it a thing of beauty and knowledge and thought often get in the way
so many know what is known and few create
the suspension of conscious thinking important

I suspect that you don't really know much about creativity, people, or science if you believe this.

 

[cre8flow]

maybe i don't know what creativity is
i am okay with that

often problems seem very difficult to solve
what gets in the way

lets take sports-i have seen very little creativity when people play sports
and let's go with art-again few artists achieve astounding creative styles
few people invent or discover groundbreaking items or ideas

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I think you should do a little research into scientific advances in the past 100 years before you say there is a lack of creativity in science ;)

 

[cre8flow]

am i saying that?

i am saying that compared to the number of humans on the planet discoveries inventions new ideas creative activities are few and far between

in fact some of them are by accident

and my apologies if science is one of the few endeavors that isn't atleast partially controlled by group think

 

[Chronos]

What is the probability of a type Ia [or really luminous type II] supernova occurring in our galaxy in any given year, or interval of years? Scientists believe they know the relative number of promising candidates and approximate time periods required for their evolution with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Unless your question is data driven, it is merely speculation.

 

[cre8flow]

i simply want to see a supernova in the sky

denying this is like saying i don't like this certain song when its constructed for you to like it

so should we be seeing a supernova soon or not??

 

[Drakkith]

i simply want to see a supernova in the sky

denying this is like saying i don't like this certain song when its constructed for you to like it

so should we be seeing a supernova soon or not??

Yes. Betelgeuse should go supernova in a few hundred thousand to a few million years. Is that soon enough for you?

 

[cre8flow]

No
But thinking thinking and then a question came to me...

 

[Drakkith]

No
But thinking thinking and then a question came to me...

Unfortunately we cannot predict supernovas closer than few hundred thousand to a few million years at this point in time. Perhaps if we stars start to fluctuate and do weird things right before they explode we can have better warning.