It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The high expansion velocities and the extreme particle energies that have been generated are unprecedented and should stimulate deeper studies of this object with Chandra and the VLA.
Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf and a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history
The recent supernova explosion was not seen in optical light about 140 years ago because it occurred close to the center of the Galaxy, and is embedded in a dense field of gas and dust. This made it about a trillion times fainter, in optical light, than an unobscured supernova. However, the supernova remnant it caused, G1.9+0.3, is now seen in X-ray and radio images.
We can see some supernova explosions with optical telescopes across half of the Universe, but when they're in this murk we can miss them in our own cosmic backyard," said Stephen Reynolds of North Carolina State University, who led the Chandra study. "Fortunately, the expanding gas cloud from the explosion shines brightly in radio waves and X-rays for thousands of years. X-ray and radio telescopes can see through all that obscuration and show us what we've been missing."
I think you have a very interesting theory here and I'm glad you took the time to share your thoughts. Could you perhaps give a bit more background on G1.9 for those who don't know? I just did a quick search because I'm not really familiar with it. And guess what the first result in Google was?
I propose that like Spanish and Russian scientists say this is a Brown Dwarf that is not "growing" but moving closer to us. That explains the expansion. That explains why its not like any other Supernova. That explains why we have only fuzzy crap pictures of it. What do you think?
Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
No, I was saying what the scientists said about it. I was proving that they call it a Supernova, but its "growth" has them confused as it doesn't fit there models. I think it is getting closer. Does that clear it up?
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
So 60 AU is the current suspected distance
How it was discovered... the controversy
You might well ask why astronomers have never detected this object before. In fact they did. G1.9 was first identified as a "supernova remnant" in 1984 by Dave Green of the University of Cambridge and later studied in greater detail with NRAO's Very Large Array radio telescope in 1985. Because it was unusually small for a supernova it was thought to be young -- less than about 1000 years old.
But in 2007, X-ray observations made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory revealed that the object was much larger than the last time it was observed! It had grown in size by 16%. Puzzled by this observation, the Very Large Array repeated its observations of 23 years ago and verified that it had increased in size considerably. Knowing that supernova do not expand this quickly, unless they have just exploded, they explained that G1.9 must be a "very young" supernova -- perhaps not more than 150 years old. But no record of a visible supernova has been found corresponding to that historical period (about the time of the American Civil War).
I doubt this link should in any way be considered a good source. For one they are mixing up the binary stellar orbit theory with that of Nibiru, the mythological planet. This shows they no nothing of either theory. They fail to source any claims being made to its location. This is after all the crux of your theory in this thread I think.