Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the now-where-did-I-put-my-astrophysics? dept.

Seems that astronomers have located the nova remnant of a star that exploded some 600 years ago.

According to Space.com:

After decades of hunting, astronomers have tracked down the origin of a nova first recorded by Korean royal astrologers nearly 600 years ago.

Evidently, Korean records are slightly different than more recent Western ones:

When the researchers first looked about three decades ago where the records seemed to say the nova was, they could not find it: "It turns out we were looking in the wrong place," Shara said. "When it comes to analyzing ancient records, it can be a challenge interpreting them correctly."

Of course, what is more interesting, is that a Nova Stella, a new star that is clearly visible, was recorded in Korea, but not in Europe. A similar situation exists with the "guest star" that resulted in the Crab Nebula, which exploded in 1054, and was recorded by Chinese astronomers. This was a supernova, and the star was so bright it could be seen during daylight, but no mention of it exists in European records.

Aristotelian doctrine, and that of the Church, was that the Heavens were unchanging, so comets were very disturbing, and new stars so unthinkable that they could not be seen? And it was Tycho Brahe and Kepler's discovery of Stella Novae that set the stage for modern astronomy.

Other coverage, including info on "dwarf nova" erupting at the same system.

Proper-motion age dating of the progeny of Nova Scorpii AD 1437 (DOI: 10.1038/nature23644) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday August 31 2017, @08:08PM (2 children)

    by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday August 31 2017, @08:08PM (#562285)

    > This was a supernova, and the star was so bright it could be seen during daylight, but no mention of it exists in European records.

    LOLWUT? Another controversial guy, crucified by the invading power to appease the local clerics, who snobbed the power of all kingdoms of the world, should have been cited much more in historical records, according to those pretty atheists of today, huh? well, we have proof that historical records can contain HUGE holes. A honest atheist would have acknowledged this in his reasonings, so, can anybody cite some atheists who did? It would be nice to read them, instead of the current crop of know-it-alls that insult logic more than faith.

    Blind leading the blind, indeed.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:35PM (#562307)

    That dude was said to have
    - impressed scholars with his brilliance at ~age 12
    - fed a multitude with 5 loaves and 2 fish
    - turned water into wine
    - walked on water
    - cured a guy's deafness
    - cured a guy's chopped-off ear
    - raised the dead
    - had zombies come out of their graves and walk about upon his death
    - arose from the dead himself
    - teleported into the clouds

    Pretty sure that if there was any truth to the fable, -some- legitimate historian would have recorded -some- of this.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday September 01 2017, @03:05PM

      by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday September 01 2017, @03:05PM (#562529)

      What made a legitimate historian legitimate, before the printing press gave power of spamming leaflets to the masses?

      Are you aware that as far as official records go, Bill Gates is a philantropist, Steve Jobs is a genius and systemd is a system addition so useful that it has been adopted by 95% of distributions when it was barely out of beta?

      Are you putting side by side the people in a roman province (many of whom shouted Barabbas Barabbas and hardly can be considered independent observers) and the population of one continent and a sizable chunk of another?

      But anyway I respect your opinion. Still, you concur that a honest assessment of an argument requires considering precedents or analogous situations?