Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/19/04
- Next message: Bill: "Re: NASA's Mars Rovers Roll Into Martian Winter"
- Previous message: Yoda: "Re: revisiting Apollo"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:27:04 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:04 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>vonroach wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:17:30 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
>> <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>>>>>The collapse of a mass (star) produces a supernova.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. The collapse *produces* the supernova. It *precedes* the supernova.
>>>>>It is not identical to the supernova! During a suernova explosion,
>>>>>the star is *expanding*, not collapsing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Arguable.
>>>
>>>What exactly is arguable here?
>>>
>>
>> whether you know as much as you claim about supernovas.
>
>What makes you think that *you* know more not only than me, but also
>more than all the people who *studied* the SNs?
>
Because many disagree with your terminology.
>I.e. what makes you think that you are qualified to judge if calling
>a SN an explosion is right or not?
>
The opinions of others weighed against yours.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>>The light which we see comes from the explosion, from the "debris"
>>>which flows away. So it is perfectly reasonable to talk about an
>>>explosion here.
>>>
>>
>> No, the residual star still emits light.
>
>Yes. But the light we *see* comes from the explosion, not from the
>collapsing core!
It comes from the supernova remnant. Material extruded when the star
implodes. It may be seen long after the initial event, and slowly
fades. Would you call this `chronic slowly fading explosion'? Most of
the opinions that I've seen disagree with this interpretation. Perhaps
if you really mean a `chronic explosion', the term stellar nuclear
reaction would be preferable. Then we would have to decide when a
`chronic explosion' becomes just a star.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Bye,
>Bjoern
- Next message: Bill: "Re: NASA's Mars Rovers Roll Into Martian Winter"
- Previous message: Yoda: "Re: revisiting Apollo"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
