|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
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,
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.
|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.|
Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email firstname.lastname@example.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.