--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > 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. > > Nevertheless, supernovae are not seen from earth > to flare up and die out in a matter of seconds.>>
Except for the one I saw. And such short flare-ups you will see confirmed or postulated in science journals within the next couple of years. Then, at that moment, you will remember my name ;-) OffWorld
