--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
That's the ticket. And the outer "shell" of a supernova explosion expands at something like only a 10th of the speed of light, 18,600 miles per second. But it isn't that the explosion is slow, it's that it's huge.
