Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found
2. Comment #180251 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm
If they just discovered this how do they have a 25 year old image of it? Just wondering.
3. Comment #180253 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 14, 2008 at 12:40 pm
4. Comment #180255 by kram50 on May 14, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I'm not much of an astronomy buff, but I do find the subject very interesting indeed.5. Comment #180256 by RevJimBob on May 14, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Surely it is 28,140 years old. The light reached Earth at the time of the American Civil War, but had already been travelling for 28000 years.6. Comment #180259 by bluebird on May 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm
7. Comment #180264 by Geodesic17 on May 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Like RevJimBob said, but rephrased, just add the number of light years to the estimated time of the event. The phrasing is a matter of perspective. From our perspective, it happened (became visable) about 150 years ago.8. Comment #180265 by ACJames on May 14, 2008 at 12:56 pm
9. Comment #180266 by noodly_noodleson on May 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm
RevJimBob,10. Comment #180267 by condorito on May 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Also, if it's 28,000 light years away how could anyone have seen it so soon after the event. Surely the light would take 28000 years to get here, or am i being stupid? "
Surely it is 28,140 years old. The light reached Earth at the time of the American Civil War, but had already been travelling for 28000 years.
11. Comment #180268 by evolver23 on May 14, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I'm not positive, but perhaps the reason they have a 23 year old picture of it is because telescopes were scanning the sky 23 years ago as they do today, taking pictures of deep space as they went, but there were way too many photos for humans to individually examine (kind of like why thousands of users are helping galaxy zoo find interesting galactic bodies). Then, when someone finally viewed this and knew the exact coordinates, they could look back at past photos of the same coordinate that had always been there but never previously seen by human eyes.12. Comment #180270 by Tezcatlipoca on May 14, 2008 at 1:01 pm
13. Comment #180271 by Geodesic17 on May 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Evolver23,14. Comment #180279 by Solarium Solaris on May 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm
15. Comment #180287 by rod-the-farmer on May 14, 2008 at 1:48 pm
16. Comment #180291 by Geodesic17 on May 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Solarium,17. Comment #180295 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm
18. Comment #180300 by RevJimBob on May 14, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Iain M Banks in Look to Windward (I think)plays with the idea of light from an exploding sun taking millennia to reach a distant star and the fact that the Culture have faster than light travel - the locals wait for the light to reach them knowing the war which created the explosion ended millennia ago.19. Comment #180307 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm
20. Comment #180310 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm
21. Comment #180344 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm
22. Comment #180348 by Rational_G on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 pm
23. Comment #180352 by Rawhard Dickins on May 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm
24. Comment #180376 by HeathenAngel on May 14, 2008 at 5:30 pm
25. Comment #180392 by T4Baxter on May 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm
26. Comment #180394 by mesomodel on May 14, 2008 at 7:29 pm
"does gravity increase for a given mass as that mass gets denser?"
Yes it does, the same amount of mass of higher density (taking up less 'space') has a greater effect on the curvature of space time, gravity is relative to the geometry of space.
27. Comment #180402 by Rational_G on May 14, 2008 at 7:51 pm
28. Comment #180427 by LeeC on May 14, 2008 at 10:08 pm
That's a cool picture of a SNR29. Comment #180428 by mesomodel on May 14, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Gravity does not increase for a given mass as it gets denser. A sphere of mass M has the same gravitational force no matter the size of the sphere. If the mass is the same, the force only depends on your distance from the center of the sphere.
So the white dwarf doesn't attract mass any greater than before if the mass didn't change.
30. Comment #180469 by Ygern on May 15, 2008 at 3:30 am
Links to older pictures (1985)31. Comment #180472 by MAVERICKMAN on May 15, 2008 at 3:50 am
32. Comment #180474 by Konradius on May 15, 2008 at 3:57 am
I am reminded in this thread of the old joke of a museum attendant who told of a dinosaur that it was 70,000,007 years old.33. Comment #180476 by bluebird on May 15, 2008 at 4:00 am
34. Comment #180483 by Azven on May 15, 2008 at 4:54 am
35. Comment #180655 by rwrjunior on May 15, 2008 at 1:08 pm
http://news.ncsu.edu/news/2008/05/084-tpreynolds.php36. Comment #180709 by chuckgoecke on May 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm
1. Comment #180245 by Solarium Solaris on May 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Other Comments by Solarium Solaris