--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Nevertheless, supernovae are not seen from earth
> > > to flare up and die out in a matter of seconds.
> > >
> > You could be right, based on the recorded evidence, but I don't
> > think that rules out the probability that this could have been
an
> > actual astronomical event witnessed from earth, yet not recorded
> > before? Possibly as some have suggested, something that looked
like
> > a super nova, but wasn't. Who knows? I just figure the odds are
in
> > the favor, given the vast size of the observable Universe, of a
> > newly discovered, or unrecorded event, not yet incorporated into
> our
> > current body of knowledge regarding observable astronomical
> > phenomenon. (whew- that's a mouthful).
>
> I said earlier that it could have been some even
> more exotic event. But it couldn't have been a
> supernova.
>
I can't say that with absolute certainty, but going by the
scientifically accepted speed limit on the visible universe being
that of light, and extrapolating the expansion of mass from a star
using that speed limit, then yes, a convincing case can be made for
the phenomenon described to not be a supernova.
