NASA about to announce something Big?, page 29

privacy

Pages: << 26 27 28 29 30 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 61 times

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 08:00 PM by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by onesockon

it took them 50 years to find it because supernovas happen every fifty years. we where all ripped off, they new what was going to happen and they said they where "hunting it" for fifty years..B.S

The last supernova observed in this galaxy was observed 330 years ago. Scientist have been looking for a supernova because by observing other galaxies it was predicted that the Milky Way should be producing about three per century.

Provided that the observations of other galaxies can be generalized to our own galaxy and apparently scientists believe that they can, then the Milky Way is about 9 short.

This one exploded 140 years ago.

You may read about it here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 08:11 PM by GradyPhilpott

Here's more:

Astronomers have discovered traces of a star that went supernova about 140 years ago, around the time of the U.S. Civil War and the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. The expanding debris cloud, or remnant, known as G1.9+0.3, lies near the center of the Milky Way, about 25,000 light-years from Earth.

Besides making G1.9+0.3 the youngest supernova remnant known in our galaxy, the finding begins to fill a peculiar astronomical gap. Based on studies of other galaxies, researchers estimate that about three supernovae should pop off per century in the Milky Way. They knew of one recent remnant, Cassiopeia A, which went supernova around 1680.

G1.9+0.3 may be the tip of the iceberg. "If the supernova rate estimates are correct, there should be the remnants of about 10 supernova explosions in the Milky Way that are younger than Cassiopeia A," said David Green of the University of Cambridge in England, leader of the VLA study, in a statement. "It's great to finally track one of them down."

www.sciam.com...

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 09:07 PM by RedGolem

If this super nove is twenty five thousand light years away, and it blew up one hundred forty years ago, how is it that it was found at all?

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 09:47 PM by Shere Khaan

Originally posted by RedGolem
If this super nove is twenty five thousand light years away, and it blew up one hundred forty years ago, how is it that it was found at all?

That is an excellent question.

I would like an answer to this one too as I wasn't aware of anything being able to travel fast enough to cover 25,000 light years in 140 years.

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 09:59 PM by GradyPhilpott

reply to post by RedGolem

Despite the supernova's timing, contemporaries of Lincoln and Darwin would have missed it, because dust and gas surrounding the dying star would have blocked the flash of visible light. The expanding gas cloud shines brightly, however, in radio and x-ray frequencies.

www.sciam.com...

I think the answer is to be found in this paragraph. I think it is likely that according to calculations the light from the supernova should have gotten here during the War of Northern Aggression or there about, but it was obscured by dust and gas.

We are now able to detect the supernova because of better instruments that can look for radio and x-ray frequencies, instead of visible light.

[edit on 2008/5/14 by GradyPhilpott]

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 10:00 PM by Tuebor

reply to post by Shere Khaan

I don't know but could it be because it was picked up by NASA's orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory and not humans on earth.

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 10:10 PM by Badge01

reply to post by RedGolem

Excellent point. It sounds like someone misunderstood the specifications.

Obviously, the light traveling from the object would still be 24,860 light years away, and thus unable to be detected by Earth telescopes.

Since we did (apparently) detect it, maybe NASA means 'light arrived from it in 1868'.

Puzzling. (Good pick up, RG)

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 10:25 PM by Threadfall

Originally posted by RedGolem
If this super nove is twenty five thousand light years away, and it blew up one hundred forty years ago, how is it that it was found at all?

This was the EXACT thing I asked myself when I read that.
I'll give some thought to this as I'm certain there is something we're not considering. Astrophysics is a lot more than common sense, and as I've learned at university common sense is often wrong. Hopefully someone can elucidate this for us.

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 10:34 PM by raptorinvictus

Even if light did arive from it in the 18th century, the star is 25000 light years away and it would still take aprox 25000 years for us to detect ny changes. all that aside whats the deal with the 140 year thing?
If they discovered it went nova 140 years ago then this is realy old news and in this case i dont see where the space obv comes into the picture. I am totaly confused by this. Can any one attempt to explain please?

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 11:00 PM by Torsten

Well, well, well....I was "pretty much" right. (see previous post)

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 11:24 PM by Badge01

Here's another SN that exploded 400 years ago, the article says it's 160,000 ly away, and includes the parenthetic (in Earth's time frame). So it's a convention that NASA uses that's confusing.

The light has obviously been traveling for 160,000 years.

Supernova 0509-67.5

Edit: OK, it's called "Lookback Time" and is explained here:

chandra.harvard.edu...

[edit on 14-5-2008 by Badge01]

reply posted on 14-5-2008 @ 11:39 PM by BlasteR

Originally posted by Threadfall

Originally posted by RedGolem
If this super nove is twenty five thousand light years away, and it blew up one hundred forty years ago, how is it that it was found at all?

This was the EXACT thing I asked myself when I read that.
I'll give some thought to this as I'm certain there is something we're not considering. Astrophysics is a lot more than common sense, and as I've learned at university common sense is often wrong. Hopefully someone can elucidate this for us.

Well obviously if the actual supernova took place 140 years ago we would not have seen it until far into the future. 140 years ago what was seen was the light that has taken thousands of years to reach earth. The actual supernova occurred 25,000 years before we actually witnessed it. If this star was really that far from earth then that's pretty much the answer.

-ChriS

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 12:21 AM by Threadfall

reply to post by BlasteR

Thank you...
For not contributing at all.
Am I wrong to interpret your answer to my query that NASA is lying about their data?

I concluded that something is amiss as well...however, rather than ascribe my common sense with infallibility, I asked whether maybe there is something not considered by us so far. Maybe, this line of questioning is based on a clerical error. I'm not so confident as you to answer such questions with such finality.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Threadfall]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 02:24 AM by BlasteR

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by BlasteR

Thank you...
For not contributing at all.
Am I wrong to interpret your answer to my query that NASA is lying about their data?

I concluded that something is amiss as well...however, rather than ascribe my common sense with infallibility, I asked whether maybe there is something not considered by us so far. Maybe, this line of questioning is based on a clerical error. I'm not so confident as you to answer such questions with such finality.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Threadfall]

Someone asked about the "140 years thing" so I answered with what I know. I have contributed to this thread btw if you have even read my posts you would know that. Something may be amiss, something may not. The point was that a question was being asked so I answered it. I don't claim to have knowledge of science or astronomy that the average joe does not. Don't single me out because you think I'm somehow imperialistically implying I'm right and you're wrong. I do read about astronomy and cosmology alot, I'm an amateur astronomer, and I was simply answering a question as to why the numbers were confusing because I know alot about the subject.

Finality is relative. Science is what we think we know about the universe around us at any one time. Our understanding is always changing and sometimes new discoveries challenge the status quo of what we thought we used to know and understand. Therefore, Finality is relative to how you interpret my answer. Just because I answered the question doesn't mean I'm somehow saying I'm even right. I'm simply answering with what science currently believes is the right answer. Any other astronomer would probably more or less give you the same answer to that question anyway. Looking into space is looking back in time. How far back in time just depends on the distance between you and that object.

-ChriS

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:06 AM by ANOK

nvr mind I goofed sry...

[edit on 15/5/2008 by ANOK]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 07:01 AM by RedGolem

Thanks to everyone who answered my question.
to recap in simple terms. The Nova did explode some twenty five thousand years ago, give or take a few hundred. Light from the Nova reached this planet about one hundred forty years ago. It was not detected at the time because of gas clouds diminishing its brilliance, and the instruments of the time.
Again thanks.