`/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/`

 Re: The Nakh Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 11/27/04 6:06 p.m. In Response To: Re: The Nakh (thermoplyae) : The sensical approach: The distance of the observable universe is (without : any crazy Einsteinian quirks) is the distance light has had the time to : travel from point A to point B. So, if we take the amount of time elasped : between the current year and the year of the nova event, we will have the : time window light has. Strangely enough, modern science has a pretty : convenient unit for figuring out just how far that is: the light year. : :) Yes, but his quandry was, did these supernovae we are speaking of, from 3189 BC, occur within the visible universe of that timeframe, ie within 6Kly?. If the galaxy is some 100,000 ly in diameter (I believe that is correct), then that's only... ((pi*(6,000)^2) / (pi*(50,000)^2)) * 100 = 1.44% of the galaxy that's visible that recently; if it happened anywhere in the other 98.56% of the universe, the light from it hasn't reaches us yet. Which means that statistically speaking, no, we probably can't see any such supernovae from as recent as 6,000 years ago. : if we were to take the time of, say, 2811 AD (the beginning of M2, : dunno where your particular timeline takes place), then 2811 - (-3189) = : 2811 + 3189 = 6000 [woah...was that on purpose?] years. At this particular : point in time, we can see at this very moment the events of 3189 B.C. from : 6000 l.y. away. I think he got his figure of 3189 B.C. because Durandal said in M2 "six thousand years ago" was when this happened. So yeah, 6Kly is the visible range for such a recent event, which is a puny 1.44% of the galaxy (if I've got my galactic figures right), so no, we probably can't see any effects of it yet.

 [ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]Pre-2004 Posts

 Replies:

 The Nakh Andrew Nagy 11/24/04 10:11 p.m. Re: The Nakh Steve Levinson 11/24/04 11:27 p.m. Re: Tau Ceti G8 •M 11/24/04 11:53 p.m. Re: The Nakh Forrest of B.org 11/25/04 12:51 a.m. Re: The Nakh Blayne 11/25/04 3:19 p.m. Re: The Nakh Steve Levinson 11/25/04 10:36 p.m. Re: The Nakh Forrest of B.org 11/26/04 9:17 a.m. Re: The Nakh thermoplyae 11/27/04 2:23 p.m. Re: The Nakh Forrest of B.org 11/27/04 6:06 p.m. Re: The Nakh Andrew Nagy 11/27/04 7:15 p.m. Re: The Nakh Forrest of B.org 11/28/04 12:13 a.m. Re: The Nakh thermoplyae 11/27/04 7:41 p.m. Re: The Nakh Forrest of B.org 11/28/04 12:03 a.m.

 [ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]Pre-2004 Posts

 Message: : Yes, but his quandry was, did these supernovae we are speaking of, from 3189 : BC, occur within the visible universe of that timeframe, ie within 6Kly?. : If the galaxy is some 100,000 ly in diameter (I believe that is correct), : then that's only... ((pi*(6,000)^2) / (pi*(50,000)^2)) * 100 = 1.44% of : the galaxy that's visible that recently; if it happened anywhere in the : other 98.56% of the universe, the light from it hasn't reaches us yet. : Which means that statistically speaking, no, we probably can't see any : such supernovae from as recent as 6,000 years ago. : I think he got his figure of 3189 B.C. because Durandal said in M2 "six : thousand years ago" was when this happened. So yeah, 6Kly is the : visible range for such a recent event, which is a puny 1.44% of the galaxy : (if I've got my galactic figures right), so no, we probably can't see any : effects of it yet. If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,please provide both the URL address and the title of the page: If necessary, enter your password below:

 Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.orgMarathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.