See if this helps.
The leading edge of this 33000 year old event was detected 140 years ago so
the event occured 32860 ago (from the first time it was seen). Today (after
140 years have passed since the first detection of the event), the event is
now 33000 years ago.
Does this help you understand the picture any better?
Pete
IMCA 1733
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "richard rumble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Super Nova
Hi All:
Thank you wikipedia.
Below is a link to a list of supernova remnants. There are several
"younger" supernovas, including the one seen by Tycho in 1572 (exploded
7500 years earlier than that). The 1054 supernova (crab nebula) was a
little closer and the one in 185 was even closer (too young to remember
that one). Thus these are all really younger than the one just detected
(if my math is good), it just too longer for the light to get here (but
was not observed as were the 1572, 1054, and 185 supernova.
Kepler's supernova in 1604 was seen, but much further away (so actually
exploded about 20,000 years ago). The latest one actually occured between
Kepler's and the others.
The Vela supernova may be the most recent being only about 1300 light
years away and it MAY have been seen 5000 years ago (or not; may have been
as much as 5000 or 6000 years earlier).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supernova_remnants
Larry
On Wed, May 14, 2008 6:16 pm, Jerry wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/science/space/15supernova.html?ref=scie
nce Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message -----
From: "richard rumble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Super Nova
I need some clarification and information from some of the brighter of
you here on the list. I just read an article about the "newest" super
nova in our galaxy... and the article says its about 140 years old.
Fine.. Im
good with that.. The article then says that it is located near the
center of the galaxy... ok.. Im good with the science of finding stuff
thats out of visual site by using X-ray, Radio wave and other
technologies. My problem in understanding is that if it is near the
CENTER of our Galaxy at
33,000 light years.. how can we have measured it at 140 years old?
Wouldn't the energy released from it travel at the speed of light take
33,000 years to arrive here? Light.. or radio waves.. or gamma rays...
don't they all move roughly at the speed of light.. ?
Just wondering..
Richard Rumble
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
