this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
86 points (93.9% liked)

Space

8410 readers
138 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.


Subcommunity of Science


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homologous@piefed.blahaj.zone 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Betelgeuse my beloved <3 <3 i hope i live to see the day you explode

[–] Verenos@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Probably already has, sadly we won’t know until that light reaches us.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

We don't actually know how far away Betelgeuse is: it could be 500 light years away; it could be just around the corner getting a pack of ciggies and a six-pack to watch the footie on the sky box a bit later, yeah? Come around six, I'll get the missus to defrost a pizza and we can talk fantasy football. The parking might be a bit shite, but the neighbour's away this weekend, so just use their driveaway and pop a "soz" letter through their door just in case. Also, ask Suze if her brother still fixes boilers as ours has gone up this week and it could use a look-see, cheers. If you see the bailiffs outside, tell 'em to get bent.

[–] Twanquility@feddit.dk 18 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Except that it's wrong. Space is cool, and Betelgeuse is impressive, but that isn't how it looks.

The star is out of focus, and the movement is due to the earths atmosphere. I could get that visual with my phone and a handheld binocular.

Any image of a star (except for our own sun), which is more than just a point of light, is a faulty representation. It's misleading. Share cool stuff, but let's not say things that we don't know to be true.

Actually i just said something that i assumed to be true, but wasn't

""Any image of a star (except for our own sun), which is more than just a point of light, is a faulty representation.""

Turns out we do have 'higher' resolution pictures of stars, thanks to raoul. I'm sorry. mistakes were made. I'll go on my lunchbreak now and think about what I've done.

[–] raoul@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Any image of a star (except for our own sun), which is more than just a point of light, is a faulty representation. It's misleading. Share cool stuff, but let's not say things

That's not true. We have higher resolution that a pixel.

[–] Twanquility@feddit.dk 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You got me! I did not know we had that. Thanks. Which one is that?

(I guess we also have the images of the light surrounding black hole in the center of our galaxy, which is also quite far away, and has quite som pixels. Although it is also larger than a typical star.)

[–] raoul@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 11 hours ago

No problem!

I take the pictures from the Betelgeuse wikipedia article. Things is evolving fast and we can get pretty incredible pictures now!

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

But I'm looking at it! It's right there! All wobbly and shit! How can it not look how it looks? And how does it look if not like that?

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Wiki

~700x the size of our Sun. It would engulf out past mars and the asteroid belt

[–] catfeeder@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 14 hours ago

Not so red, huh?