--- 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.
>
> OffWorld
>
Cool theory- definitely something to take into account.
