Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?

From: vonroach (hadrainc_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:39:29 GMT

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:58:52 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

>vonroach wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Who are these "many"?
>
>So far, *you* are the only one who disagrees with calling a
>supernova an explosion.
>
>
>
>
>[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.
>
>What do *you* call an event where a lot of stuff is shot violently
>outward from a center, due to a release of a huge amount of energy, if
>not an explosion???
>
>
>> Material extruded when the star implodes.
>
>Why do you choose the word "extrude" here? Apparently in order to
>avoid the *obvious* implication that this describes an explosion.
>
>
>> It may be seen long after the initial event, and slowly
>> fades. Would you call this `chronic slowly fading explosion'?
>
>No. The original event of shooting all this stuff outward from the center.

>From the `center' how did you determine that?
>
>> 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.
>
>Nice strawman, as usual.
>
Now I see, a `strawman' is an observation for which you have no glib
answer.
>
>Bye,
>Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... supernova an explosion. ... > It comes from the supernova remnant. ... > the opinions that I've seen disagree with this interpretation. ... > if you really mean a `chronic explosion', ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... >> whether you know as much as you claim about supernovas. ... Because many disagree with your terminology. ... Would you call this `chronic slowly fading explosion'? ... `chronic explosion' becomes just a star. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Action Replay of Powerful Stellar Explosion (Forwarded)
    ... Action Replay of Powerful Stellar Explosion ... supernova explosion that was visible from Earth long ago. ... Using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, ... the supernova remnant and the supernova light echo that are located in the ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Action Replay of Powerful Stellar Explosion (Forwarded)
    ... Action Replay of Powerful Stellar Explosion ... supernova explosion that was visible from Earth long ago. ... Using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, ... the supernova remnant and the supernova light echo that are located in the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... >>supernova an explosion. ... Troll. ... The original event of shooting all this stuff outward from ... The only one who is giving "glib answers" here is you, ...
    (sci.astro)