a quick question

[thugfella]

if a really old star was as big as it could be and it was gonna blow up....and earth was a light year away would earth still be affected?

 

[yevaud]

Oh yes, that close?! If even a modest sized star that was still big enough to supernova (3 times as massive as our sun or larger) did so, the radiation (x-rays, Gamma-rays, highly energetic particles, etc.)would reach us in a little over a year, and probably sterilize all life from Earth.<br /><br />Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be any candidates to do this anytime soon within a goodly distance of Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dark_energy]

A huge star that would be as massive as it could be that was ONLY one light-year away would create a massive explosion, possible a gamma-ray burst and burn our planet to a crisp, killing all life with it's intense radiation. What a horrible death, being cooked alive. It would form a black hole so big we'd probably be sucked in eventually from its enormous gravitational attraction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Thugfella- That is another way earth is protected - we are not near any dangerous object - though our sun could be a danger depending on the correct model of stellar evolution and the correct model of earth's future orbit.<br /><br />It also depends on whether man can change the results, and also whether God intends to input further intelligent direction - which is related to the question of how open the solar system is.<br /><br />Old and big do not go together, btw, when it comes to stars.<br /><br />More massive stars have shorter life spans.

 

[Saiph]

...or, if you don't wish to put an outside entity into it. We would a) never have developed, or b) be dead or c) be staring at immenent doom if we lived near such a star.<br /><br />Any of those are possibilities. and are likely the fate of other life. It doesn't make us special, just lucky. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Saiph - How much would you attribute to luck mathematically speaking?<br /><br />And also, how do you explain how we developed in the first place?<br />Of course, you are correct that if we were in a dangerous location, like near the core of Milky Way, we would be in serious trouble!<br /><br />It has recently been discovered that stellar collisions are not so uncommon in that region.<br /><br />However, it is extremely unlikely in our region of Milky Way.<br />BTW - I prefer chance to luck, since you can mathematically quantify chance and therefore analyze conclusions based on that in a logical manner.<br /><br />Belief in good luck is like superstition to me - I doubt you meant luck in that sense - but please clarify.

 

[Saiph]

luck in my sense, is merely a run of favorable outcomes from random processes.<br /><br />But, it's completely chance, even if it is a subset of a bunch of "chances". Because we could just as easily entered into the picture during a run of unfavorable events...or a single, very unfavorable.<br /><br />As for how we developed in the first place? <br /><br />I've always had a gut instict that the creation of self-replicating molecules is a natural consequence of a basic system. The rest, is evolution.<br /><br />Yes, I know it hasn't panned out well in a lab (IIRC someone tried and it didn't work well) but so that weakens my position a bit, but doesn't kill it entirely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

We'd definitely be pretty screwed from the radiation, but the ensuing black hole wouldn't "suck us in" any more than the original star would. Black holes aren't magical sucking machines, they have gravity like anything else and you can orbit a black hole as safely as you can orbit a planet or a star.