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.
That was most likely an iridium flare, not a supernova:
Originally posted by JLO1986
In 2005 when I was in Basic training at Fort Sill, OK in the army, I was at morning PT running and it was dark outside to where I could see many stars. I don't know which direction of the sky I was facing but I literally saw a supernova with my naked eye.
In this week's blog, we discussed how the 1054 Supernova was recorded by Japanese, Chinese and Native American astronomers-but not, apparently, by Europeans. Why?
One theory is that bad weather prevented any observations in Europe. However, the supernova was visible for two years
I think you were in the ballpark with the date, though I never heard any name like that associated with the 1054 supernova.
Originally posted by ctdannyd
Just as a for instance though, the super nova in 1044AD (or around there) was seen by Tycho Bahae and this was visable during the day time. It was a "star" before in went super nova, so in essance, it was there, exploded, and is now just a diffused nebula with only a very small remnant of it's former self.
You're right and wrong. You're right that there have been changes. You're wrong in theinking that they'd be dramatic in only a few thousand years, with the exception of events like the 1054 supernova which was dramatic enough to be recorded by some astronomers but not others.
Originally posted by gwydionblack
Surely, with the sheer amount of bodies visible in our night sky, the probability that at least one things would have greatly changed in the past few millennia should be staggering. Yet it doesn't seem like anything has.
Am I wrong?
If I am right, how can this be explained?