--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Cool story, but I don't think supernovae blow up and fizz > > > > out in a matter of seconds. Wikipedia says it takes several > > > > weeks or months: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernovae>> > > > > > > Some of them certainly can appear and fizz out in seconds. > > > > > Um, no.>. > > Wrong. > > You need to understand the forces possible in far flung parts of the > universe, not just base your thinking on local stellar objects. Some > stars are very small and very powerful, and the extent of the blast > can be a short distance. Certainly possible, probably common. And how > would you explain a supernova occuring about 14 billion years ago, > which to our time-frame would be close to the beginning of time, > which, by our time-frame perspective had a different space-time > structure, time was, in a sense, faster, and yet, the event, by our > spatial perspective, is on the far-flung expanding edge of our known > universe. To use simple linear and layman's thinking at this point > will not suffice. Even the physicists cannot be sure how these events > extrapolate into our time-space perspective. > > OffWorld >
Ummm... Have supernovae been observed to occur 14 billion years ago?
