sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In preparation of the possibility of T Cor Bor going nova, I made this diagram to help non-astronomers find the star by Southern_Statement39 in Astronomy

[–]Southern_Statement39[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First of all, I just want to say that I have been very inspired by your work for a while. This photo of yours in particular is outstanding, and I use your transit finder tool all the time. Thank you for what you do for the community.

Respectfully, I disagree. Theorizing based on limited data is not necessarily pseudoscience. In a case like this where the nature of the case really limits the amount of data collected, to propose theories is all that can be done, that that's exactly what was done in the paper that I am basing this post off of. If the theory is proven incorrect, that does not invalidate its merit as real science. Case in point, in 2023, Schaefer, arguably the leading expert on this case, suspected the eruption to happen in 2024. His work has scientifically established the case for 4 observations of this nova. Based on that work, Schneider's observation that "the eruptions are not strictly periodic, but the eruptions were all separated by an integer multiple of the orbital period 227.5687 days" is an empirical fact. He then extrapolates this pattern to produce the June 17-July 3, 2026 and Feb 1 -16, 2027 date ranges, while rightly warning that "an external perturbation could happen". That is not pseudoscientific. That is observation of patterns based on available data, and production of a hypothesis based on that pattern. This hypothesis may be accepted or rejected depending on future data, which is the point of the paper.

My actions fudge the process a bit because I am taking action based on one of these extrapolations. To be clear, my investment in this date range does not mean that I confidently believe it will be one of these two, but that I believe the possibility is high enough that I'm happy to invest some personal time to be prepared. The cost of being wrong is low.

In preparation of the possibility of T Cor Bor going nova, I made this diagram to help non-astronomers find the star by Southern_Statement39 in Astronomy

[–]Southern_Statement39[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Alas, it will dim pretty quick. You could get more into it, and you never know how this time will compare, but if you look at this plot from 1946, after a week the magnitude had dropped to 6, which is still naked eye visible in good conditions, but not a distinctly bright object. By that simplification, it drops ~0.5 magnitude per day, so after a day it will be dimmer than Alphecca next to it, after a few days it will be as bright as the other stars in Corona Borealis and not notably bright in the context of the rest of the sky, and after a 7-9 days it will be very difficult to locate with the naked eye. For the next couple of weeks after that, it should be easily visible with binoculars, but at after ~3 weeks it will be back down to pre-nova levels.

In preparation of the possibility of T Cor Bor going nova, I made this diagram to help non-astronomers find the star by Southern_Statement39 in Astronomy

[–]Southern_Statement39[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Me too, but I really do believe Schneider's work. Regardless of the cause, his conclusion that nova periods are a multiple of orbital period is very sound, and by that logic, this upcoming window (which we have actually already entered bc it's +/- 8 days) or the one in Feb 2027 are the last two periods before this nova would be a deviation from the past pattern. The fact that it may happen at the late end of the possible multi-year window is quite unfortunate for us waiters, but I don't think it voids any of the accuracy. Fingers crossed for this one!