Bmpbmp1975

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Please rein in your vacuum decay fetish. Pushing non-mainstream solutions into a discussion is against the rules.

 

That is not what I was doing I was just trying to understand the comment Below. So if I understand right nothing what we think is right may actually be right. I don’t get where data changes it since we have data on Betelgeuse. 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

The brightness of Betelgeuse is measured. Therefore not a guess.

(Vacuum decay would be off topic so I am not going to discuss it other than to say the theory is based on measurements. Therefore not a guess.)

No. I didn't say that.

I don’t understand what you mean by measurements, 

so that means that everything we think we know about any science or physics is just a guess? 
 

we are not sure betelguese will not go supernova for a while still, and we are guessing our sun will not explode for millions of years and we are guess vacuum decay will not happen anytime soon. Because there is no data telling us otherwise

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

For example, imagine you look at Anna on the other side of the room and you think she is about 1.60m tall. That is a guess. (Or, perhaps, an estimate based on the size of things around them. If I asked you how tall my cousin Bob was, then that would have to be a complete guess.)

On the other hand, we could get several people to measure how tall Anna is. We might get numbers like 1.72m, 1.71m, 1.69m, 1.71m, etc. From this data (ie. actual measurements) we can can calculate not just her height, but also the errors or accuracy of the measurements.

What’s different between betelguese and vacuum decay it’s all guessing with no real data?

as you said it’s guess work

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a good summary of the methods being used and the results.

I would caution that trying to predict future behaviour based (purely) on past behaviour is fraught with all sorts of risks. If we don't fully understand the mechanisms and causes, then it may not be much better than trying to predict the weather based on what it was like yesterday.

No. There is a big difference between a guess and data (even if we know the data is not 100% accurate).

What do mean about data and guessing

since science is more guessing that being sure?

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Or, to put it another way: we don't know.

One of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have.

All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure.

So that also means all the scoentific information about anything is just a guess, betelguese, black holes, our sun and vacuum decay?

37 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

No.

So still dimming?

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Here is the analysis for yesterday's data from https://twitter.com/betelbot.

@Bmpbmp1975 I interpret it as:
According to the statistical method chosen, Gaussian Process Regression, Betelgeuse may be brightening or dimming in the coming days. The data shows that brightening is slightly more probable that further dimming (see dashed blue line). If data had more precision / less spread the light blue field would be narrower and prediction would have less room for error.

The data betelbot uses is available at www.aavso.org 

Here is an example plot for 700 days, showing dimming and brightening over current and previous 420-430 days cycle:

https://www.aavso.org/lcg/plot?auid=000-BBK-383&starname=BETELGEUSE&lastdays=700&start=&stop=2458900.834259699&obscode=&obscode_symbol=2&obstotals=yes&calendar=calendar&forcetics=&pointsize=1&width=800&height=450&mag1=&mag2=&mean=&vmean=&grid=on&visual=on&uband=on&bband=on&v=on

 

So it’s brightening again 

I don’t know when it was constantly dimming I thought maybe but now since it brightens and Dims I think it may be following pattern 

now if I am judging the graphs right then the past few days or so it dims then brightens right ?

12 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

You wouldn't want to see a supernova? 

Why not, it's too far away to harm us. Would be the most spectacular thing anybody has seen. Just breathtaking. I would love to witness it.

Sorry what I meant was if that was best outcome what was worst outcome 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is the best outcome. But it isn't likely to happen soon.

I don't know how much the variation is due to measurement error (difficulty measuring the brightness, effects of the atmosphere, etc) and how much is due to the brightness varying a lot.

I think one of the effects is convection in the outer layers of the star. This would be very variable.

 

Not sure what you mean about best outcome?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

As you can see from the graph the (measured) brightness varies quite a lot over the short term. That means it can be hard to be sure whether the dimming has stopped, is continuing or has reversed. Only time will tell.

Anyway, the absolute worst that can happen is that it completely fades from view (but I'm not even sure if that is possible).

I thought it can go supernova?

also when you say brightness and Simms does that mean it’s going back and forth now?

Does anyone have any current updates on Betelgeuse? 
 

i notice different articles say different things some say dimming stopped, some say still going and some say it seems to be a little brighter?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2020/02/17/betelgeuse-has-finally-stopped-dimming-says-astronomer/#397113b67945

The star has been nearly steady in brightness now over the last 10 days,” said Guinan.

We could be at minimum brightness now and very soon the star will slowly brighten if it follows its normal 420 to 430 period of pulsation, says Guinan. Or when the star periodically changes its  brightness, he says. These periodicities are seen in observations of Betelgeuse as far back to the 1930s, says Guinan. But these most recent dips in the star’s brightness have been profound, he says. 

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Soooo...
Not real.

What is not real 

i am just asking for the truth

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

So a link is not possible...for a presumably online forum?

I can post the contents if you’d like 

also my questions on only on the comments made that I posted? 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where did you find this information?

It was an explanation given to me by a scientist I asked weeks ago on a forum and they finally responded 

There comment are way different than here?

So I was asking the other day about fine constant structure and vacuum decay and got some answers. What I found goes against what I was told here, why?

i have been looking more into this and found some more information.

Here is an interesting thought, what if the bootes void is really the product of vacuum decay or collapse?
and these voids we are seeing are product of the Higgs field dropping?

had this ever been thought Or discussed?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This could be an interesting test of how sincere @Bmpbmp1975 is about wanting to discuss science seriously.

This was fixed I think spellcheck had set it that way. Sorry didn’t realize it 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Your posts got locked because you AREN’T posting the article and the relevant paragraph. 

 

So in my betelguese post I added the article and paragraph and it was still locked?

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for confirming 

WoW thank you 

I am asking  questions and trying understand things, if you want to insult my questions then go ahead or just ignore me. Many people here actually answer things I ask. I may not understand right away and ask additional questions. Sorry I am working on getting better but need the opportunity to.

but some people here find the need to just insult no matter what I say or ask. If I offended you in any way to deserve this i apologize it was not my intent 

and also I never really had the chance to get anything from my mom, thank you 

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

How unfortunate. They’re very clear 

So is you plan to just keep insulting me 

Thank you 

I am confused with these comments

Also, it's likely it won't explode either way for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. In the what-keeps-me-up-at-night category, this object ranks pretty low. That dumb thing I said to a celebrity I met once rates way higher on that list, if that makes you feel better.

I'm actually quite happy this system has been found. If it's dangerous I'd rather know about it than not know. And since it probably isn't dangerous, that just leaves it being one of the most incredible, over-the-top, fascinating and gorgeous objects in the sky.

Just now, Ghideon said:

As far as I know Big Bang was not an explosion, why do think that? I don not know what "it" is but if it states that a gamma ray burst is a smaller version if Big Bang then I suggest the source is not very reliable.

 

Sorry the article I read said biggest events since big bang