Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
S Dec 17, 2023 at 17:56 vote accept marmel
Aug 11, 2023 at 16:07 answer added Nosajimiki timeline score: 5
Aug 11, 2023 at 12:47 answer added Khannea timeline score: 0
Apr 12, 2021 at 7:20 comment added PcMan It will be a very tiny, black dot. Black, because looking at even a 10 billion year old neutron star (~50000K), will contain almost no visible light frequencies but a ton of x-rays that will fry the observer long before the visible light will be observable.
Apr 8, 2021 at 1:02 vote accept marmel
S Dec 17, 2023 at 17:56
Apr 4, 2021 at 12:52 comment added Pelinore Dark, very dark, everything would be very dark, you'd have gone blind.
Apr 3, 2021 at 19:47 answer added Stilez timeline score: 9
Mar 31, 2021 at 7:13 comment added Starfish Prime @JamesFaix stellar remnants are often very hot, because the process that created them was Quite Energetic, they're very heavy and they have a comparatively small surface area to radiate all that energy away. As an example, the Hubble telescope spotted a stray neutron star. It is hot and bright enough to see with a (big) telescope from a few hundred lightyears away, even without doing any fusion.
Mar 31, 2021 at 3:24 answer added L.Dutch timeline score: 4
Mar 31, 2021 at 2:22 comment added El El Hmm. I don't feel like going into physics, so I just grabbed a short quote from a trustable source: "Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina: A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or the detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?" "Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude." (what-if.xkcd.com/73) Maybe you'd see something... but not for long...
Mar 31, 2021 at 1:29 comment added Atog I think it would not glow, because it would not be doing fusion any more
Mar 31, 2021 at 1:27 history asked marmel CC BY-SA 4.0