--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > 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.>> > > Except that some recent theories suggests that the "speed" of light, > was never constant, and in the past travelled much faster than we > observe it today. >
By the time stars formed, I'm pretty sure that the constant was close to today's value.
