--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > 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.> > > Then you know more than the astronomers do. >
MMMmmm... they used to assume that the speed of light was always a constant. Now, there is evidence that that may not be the case. Are you aware of any statements by astronomers to suggest that there is evidence that the speed of light, AFTER stars were formed, was significantly different than today's accepted figure? By "significantly," I mean large enough to allow for the kind of supernova that you assert could have happened 14 billion years ago.
