Yes, that would be better. Earth might be considered the most inhospitable.
I took ‘inhospitable’ to mean - “the environmental condition in a region that lacks a favorable climate or terrain for life or growth” - so if you’re instantly vaporised, that’s pretty damn unfavourable to life!
Obviously…but my point was that in most cases you would be vaporized, almost instantly, the only variable being how fast that would occur.
If you’re question had been “On what planet/moon would you survive the longest before the atmospheric conditions killed you” then we could contrast and compare.
Also, whatever said human is wearing would have minimal effect.
Whatever, you got the gist of it.
I think only a very few have any chance of vaporizing you. More common would be asphyxiation, freezing, and/or being crushed into a very solid chunk of ex-human. Vaporization would require high heat and relatively low pressure, which isn’t really all that common outside of the solar corona.
I stand corrected, after review, the temperatures were not as extreme as I had anticipated.
The pressures at “surface” levels are much more impressive.
Yeah…except Quasars do not exist anymore in our universe.
That said if you were near one getting hosed down by it would pretty much suck (IIRC they had the energy output of a galaxy).
(Actually come to think of it I am guessing it wouldn’t suck much beyond being dead…you’d be vaporized so fast I doubt you’d even know you died.)
I don’t think we know that for sure, we can’t see the current state of most of the universe as the light hasn’t had time to reach us. From the wiki article on Quasars:
Here’s a picture of a 5000 light-year long jet from a active galaxy M87, which is only 53 millions light years away. That’s the same mechanism that powers quasars but on a smaller scale, relatively recently. You certainly wouldn’t want to be in it’s path.
They aren’t there because it stems from the Cosmological Principle (simply stated that the Earth does not hold a special position in the universe and on large scale the universe is roughly the same in all directions).
That being the case the only reason we see quasars very distant from us is because they are a feature of a younger universe. The nearest quasar to us is 2.5 billion light years away. If quasars were a regular feature of the universe we should see some closer but we don’t.
If you could magic yourself out to where a quasar is you’d probably see quasars close(ish) to the Milky Way and none near you. In short, the universe would look the same from there as it would from here and you’d only see quasars very distant to you.
The Coldest Place, yes. But the “superconducting brain” story, Wait It Out, is set on Pluto (as you doubtless know).
I know this doesn’t qualify, but I just spent the morning reading up on some real world astronomy.
From the wiki article on Rigel, the brightest star in the Orion constellation:
Such as in the case of the “Death Star galaxy”, where such a jet is actually bombarding a nearby neighbor.
Quasars can turn on and off, depending on how much material they are accreting. Just because the nearest quasar we can see is 2.5 billion light years away does not mean that there has been no quasar activity since then. Quasars were certainly much more common in the early universe, but that doesn’t mean future quasar activity is impossible. Some models predict a quasars can form as a result of galaxies merging.
Perhaps so but reference the Cosmological Principle again.
It may be possible (I have no idea) but we see nothing like that and no matter where you are in the universe it should look about the same as it does from here.
If a quasar could appear “near” us (say less than 100 million light years) all I can say is such a thing is apparently super-unlikely.
Yes, but we’re only seeing a snapshot of the current state of the universe, we’ve only been observing seriously for a few decades. Your argument supports the conclusions that quasars were much more common in the early universe, and are now very rare. Over time, more gas ends up either in stars or in supermassive black holes. But that doesn’t mean that quasars are extinct yet.
The only difference between an AGN and a quasar is the rate of accretion. M87 is estimated to accrete about a tenth of a solar mass of material a year, compared to about ten solar masses for a typical quasar. That’s a factor of 100. It’s not a huge stretch to imagine that it might reach those levels, or close to those levels, at some stage of a galactic merger.
Anyway, Der Tris’ link above shows that death rays in the thousand light-year long class are still in existence.
Alternatively, the Anthropic Principle implies that we exist in a region that allows us to exist. We may have had the chance to evolve because our section of space is particularly unlikely to develop quasars.