APOD: Visual Effects: Wonders of the Universe (2011 Apr 18)

[StarTrailer]

Hey! What happened to the video? I just went back to the APOD page and now it reads "SORRY This video does not exist." What happened? It was awesome and I was hoping to show my 5 year old son today!

Thanks,
Star Trailer, PA

[KD]

Here it is Monday, Apr. 18 and the video no longer exists. Bummer.

[Dav!d]

All I got was a message from Vimeo saying this video does not exist.

[dublig1]

What happened to the video?

[Dustin]

FYI: as of 13:24 PST The video is gone and deleted from Vimeo.

[chanio]

Hi!
For those expecting to see a missing video at VIMEO, please, follow this link to watch a better one with captions at YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1mIajFl ... re=related
[youtube]k1mIajFlcas[/youtube]
Enjoy!
alberto

[yggdrasil]

I saw this video at 16:30 GMT today 18 April, but had no time to run it then. 5 hours later I came back to watch it, and it is labelled 'This video doesn't exist'
What happened? I look at the nasa pics every day, and this looked interesting

[bystander]

For those expecting to see a missing video at VIMEO, please, follow this link to watch a better one with captions at YOUTUBE

The video quality is very poor.

[JohnD]

Does this explain the strange cartoon landscape on the APOD site?
John

[TPFITZPATRICK]

Thanks for posting the Youtube link.

[Jordan]

Bravissimo! Almost as good as the youtube video showing the relative size of planets and stars.

[stowaway]

One minute into this video I got bored and turned it off. And the "music" was awful.
I prefer (I love) the daily APOD pictures accompanied by explanation.

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who was disappointed. But I forced myself to watch the whole thing. The pictures were good if they had been accompanied by a vocal documentary description of what it was depicting. The music was nothing special. The images seem to repeat again and again with no logical sequence, relation, evolution or storyline. Too many explosions!

[BMAONE23]

The APOD should be updated with the image and link redirected to the Youtube version here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9a8OnMS4c

[owlice]

The APOD should be updated with the image and link redirected to the Youtube version here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9a8OnMS4c

Yes, that is in the works now.

[Dr. Bob]

Hmm This is what I see on today's APOD
nothing else....

"
Sorry

This video does not exist.
"

[ThePiper]

Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer etc. give us exceptional (static) pictures from our cosmos. But to achieve impressions and feelings about the dynamic behind the beautiful pictures we need artists and visionary. Visual Effects and bombastic sounds can be helpful.


The game of space, energy, materia and forces is a permanent and omnipresent process of disruption, destruction, apocalypse and chaos. Even the "birth" of any objects in the cosmos, big or small, is a violent process.

However, biological systems are the big exception; they are the result of "constructive" processes, for a bittie moment on the timescale. Good for us, so we can admire the wonderful, giant jet of instantaneous, absolute deadly Gamma rays of Centaurus A ...

[orin stepanek]

I thought it was OK; but there seemed to be a lot of stellar effects. I wish there were more visuals of nebulae and galaxies.

[kcobb]

I did find the views quite beautiful.

I had one problem with the video, though: it was extremely disjointed. I have no idea whether the artists were trying to tell a story or just show some of the "Wonders of the Universe". Either way, better transitions would have made for a much more understandable video.

I may have to look for the series to see if it does a better job, as I expect it to.

[booky1@earthlink.net]

Maybe someone else said it better: I liked the video but the variability of the illumination - sudden flairs across the screen - indicated a problem with the "camera" not flairs of the objects shown.

Please, cinematographers, try to remember: the speed of light is FINITE. When looking at objects of astronomical size - like a light-minute in size (18 million kilometers), you are NOT going to see any overall changes in brightness in less than a minute. In particular, some scenes in this film appear to be supernovae. Looking down from a light-minute away from the star at the moment of explosion, you would (a minute later) see the star suddenly brightening from the center outward. 3 dimensionally it would look like a football of fire expanding from the star in your (the camera's) direction while bright light would flash out asymmetrically over clouds of gas or planets in the vacinity. The star isn't really aiming at you, you just see first the part of the blast nearest to you.

Actually, a supernova takes several hours to brighten to max because most of the light is not from the explosion, but from the great masses of unstable nickel and cobalt blasted out, elements which become very hot from radioactive decay and shine much more than the star itself ever did. True, the outer part of the body of the star is blasted out too, but it cools very quickly. The nickel and cobalt are bi-products of the last nuclear stage of burning - where silicon fuses to iron and releases not heat but neutrinos. A lot of nickel and cobalt (neighbors of iron on the periodic table) are created at the same time and the expanding cloud of these elements are what make the blast so bright. And, of course, the brightness is also dependent on the diameter of the expanding cloud of gas. This is type I. Type II is another story. The movie showed a compact object in an accretion disk with a large stellar neighbor - if the compact object were a white dwarf, at some time after starting to cannibalize the neighbor, accumulated hydrogen fallen to the surface of the dwarf would detonate, completely destroying the dwarf. I've no idea what would happen to the neighbor.

In any case, a supernova from up close would take quite a while to change from an angry star (anybody know what color?) to a huge blot of blinding white.

[astro1]

At ~13:00, it appears to be a supernova explosion. You see the material in the outer part of the star slowly collapsing, while the material in the inner part has already collapsed, bounced off the core, and is moving outward. The outward moving material sends pressure waves into the infalling outer core and pushes everything outward. This is a supernova explosion.

[geckzilla]

It really just looks like an effects reel or stringing together of a bunch of test animations to me. Not exactly something meant to be even remotely scientifically accurate. Eye candy is the most succinct way to put it.

[NoelC]

Entertaining, but the latter part of the first half seemed to me to just get repetitive after a while. The pulsars / beam-emitting stars in the 2nd half were fun, though.

Interesting use of the "water droplets on lens" effect to make it seem more real.

I'll be it was fun to make.

This one has captions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1mIajFlcas

-Noel

[Ann]

booky1@earthlink.net wrote:

In any case, a supernova from up close would take quite a while to change from an angry star (anybody know what color?) to a huge blot of blinding white.

As a color freak, I'd say that the core of the supernova-to-be, which is the part of the star that sets off the supernova explosion, doesn't know what color its photosphere is. And it doesn't care.

Before Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud, every astronomer that I ever came across writing about the subject claimed that the progenitor of a supernova would be a red supergiant. Then SN1987A happened, and the progenitor star could be identified in old photographs of the LMC - and progenitor had the impertinence of having been blue. Well, later the progenitor of another relatively nearby supernova, one in M81, could be identified, and it appeared to have been yellow.

Massive stars are known hue-changers, however. Before SN 1987A astronomers knew very well that massive blue stars would eventually turn red. However, large bright stars come in other colors, too. Deneb is a well-known white (although I'd say bluish) supergiant, and Rho Cassiopeiae is a yellow hypergiant. And after SN 1987A, astronomers agreed that the progenitor star had once been blue, then it had turned red, then it had become blue again.

Massive stars change color; that's their lives. But their cores don't care.

Ann

[ThePiper]

.... accumulated hydrogen fallen to the surface of the dwarf would detonate, completely destroying the dwarf. I've no idea what would happen to the neighbor.

It would becom a Runaway Star. There is such a runner identified in the Milky Way, outside of the galactic plane, but more or less over our roof.

Thanks booky1; Good description.

[rzl]

now the youtube video is down too :/