Upcoming Visible Nova in Corona Borealis

[cubinator]

Took some more images and the brightness does not appear to have changed over these last few hours. All clear as far as I can tell!

[Spikemaster]

Interesting

The eastern side is usually clear so I might be able to see it every evening when Corona borealis rises

 

[Nuke]

has the thing happened already? so far my track record for observing astronomical phenomena this year has not been great as everything looks like rain clouds. im told that there is a big glowing ball in the sky but i cant find it. much less the little glowing ball.

Edited May 27 by Nuke

[cubinator]

23 minutes ago, Nuke said:

has the thing happened already? so far my track record for observing astronomical phenomena this year has not been great as everything looks like rain clouds. im told that there is a big glowing ball in the sky but i cant find it. much less the little glowing ball.

As of about 14 hours ago, I think not.

[Nuke]

51 minutes ago, cubinator said:

As of about 14 hours ago, I think not.

i mean id go out and look but the sky is very grey and has been since the aurora.

[Piscator]

It will be interesting to see how accurate the predictions will turn out to be. Apparently we only have good observational data for the last two events, which is surprisingly little to go on.

[K^2]

9 hours ago, Piscator said:

Apparently we only have good observational data for the last two events, which is surprisingly little to go on.

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's the perfect amount of data.

Draws a straight line on graph paper through points labeled (1866, 2) and (1946, 3) with intensity normally reserved for cutting red or blue wires.

[magnemoe]

17 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's the perfect amount of data.

Draws a straight line on graph paper through points labeled (1866, 2) and (1946, 3) with intensity normally reserved for cutting red or blue wires.

For some reason drawing an line between two points always give an straight line if using an ruler    
I would expect it to be couple of % variation because of weather on the large star. 
 

[Nuke]

so we will have 3 data points instead of 2. 3 is 50% better than 2.

[NFUN]

It's almost certain that the fit will be made worse by adding a third data point. Not worth

[Nuke]

i cant help but think that science is not about making lines look pretty. this is also why sound engineers keep destroying perfectly good music by flattening out all the bumps. squiggly lines are good.

Edited May 28 by Nuke

[NFUN]

[Nuke]

you just wiped out all the data though.

[NFUN]

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

straight line if using an ruler

Fine, make things complicated - why don't you?!? 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, NFUN said:

It's almost certain that the fit will be made worse by adding a third data point. Not worth

 

2 hours ago, Nuke said:

i cant help but think that science is not about making lines look pretty. this is also why sound engineers keep destroying perfectly good music by flattening out all the bumps. squiggly lines are good.

Nuke, I'll solve NFUN's riddle for you using math's and logic.  Marines get this stuff, watch:

There is exactly one way that adding a third point of data won't totally mess up @K^2's two-point prediction.  Literally every other possible point would make his ' two points and a ruler' derived prediction some degree less accurate.  Since there is an infinite number of other possibilities for where to place the third point - and we cannot split infinity, we will use the SWAG principle and insert a sufficiently large number for infinity and do the math.  I'm going with a gagillion.

If you add a gagillion, plus the one possible point that makes K^2s big brain prediction possible, you get a gagillion and one.  Divide that by 2 and you get the average - half a gagillion (give or take).  Thus, the average deviation from the preceeding two points when placing the third point should be half a gagillion off the line of the other two. 

Since that's the case, logic tells you that if the third point lines up with the first two it can only mean one thing: @K^2 is clearly manipulating the data and cannot be trusted. 

[cubinator]

I just did my nightly check to see if it's exploded.

It has not.

[Nuke]

the sky is still gray.

[Superfluous J]

34 minutes ago, Nuke said:

the sky is still gray.

So it's brighter than it was! HYPE

14 hours ago, K^2 said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's the perfect amount of data.

Draws a straight line on graph paper through points labeled (1866, 2) and (1946, 3) with intensity normally reserved for cutting red or blue wires.

(yes I know why this is different)

[magnemoe]

21 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

So it's brighter than it was! HYPE

(yes I know why this is different)

I was thinking about that comic then writing the above  

[K^2]

43 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

yes I know why this is different

Naturally, you are referring to the fact that in most jurisdictions, spouses are subject to Fermi-Dirac statistics by law.

[cubinator]

By the way, asteroid Pallas has been right next to this star the past few days, which is fun to watch it move from day to day.

[kerbiloid]

On 5/29/2024 at 6:07 AM, cubinator said:

I just did my nightly check to see if it's exploded.

It has not.

Paraphrasing the harsh penguin meme:

Spoiler

The still alive dwellers of the wannabe-nova planet:

 

 

2 hours ago, cubinator said:

By the way, asteroid Pallas has been right next to this star the past few days, which is fun to watch it move from day to day.

Once it has hit it, it will explode.

[cubinator]

Last time this nova was observed was in 1946. Were we even doing any meaningful radio astronomy at that point? I was thinking earlier that we may not have any detailed radio observations of this nova.

[magnemoe]

On 6/28/2024 at 10:19 PM, cubinator said:

Last time this nova was observed was in 1946. Were we even doing any meaningful radio astronomy at that point? I was thinking earlier that we may not have any detailed radio observations of this nova.

Radio astronomy was invented in the 30's but it was very primitive, did some surveys and stuff but nothing serious until the 50's