Talk:Cassiopeia A
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Someone has written about Cas A under the title 3C 461. I think all the info there should be moved here and that page made a redirect. (Although I REALLY doubt anyone will look up Cas A on Wiki using the Cambridge catalog number!) --Etacar11 23:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Have done. The old article contained a few mistakes, which I'm working on correcting (its not the youngest for example). The whole SN/SNR template is a bit unwieldy though. Am thinking what to do about it. Some catagories don't make much sense. --Sillylizard 20:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll take a look when I get a chance. --Etacar11 21:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also something is written under Sn 1680. I've added merge template. --xJaM 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I agree, merge it here. --Etacar11 17:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did the merge. --Etacar11 14:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 300 years old
It can't be. It may be 300 years since we saw the explosion but the star is 11,000 light-years from us. That means that the supernova must be at least 11,000 years old. If current observations appear to show the state of the supernova 300 years after the explosion, that implies that the explosion itself happened 11,300 years ago. We need to clarify this. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's the convention in astronomy to say an event "happened" when we observe it from Earth. Distance can be very uncertain. So it is indeed proper to say that the SN happened 300 years ago. --Etacar11 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It may well be proper but for anyone unaware of that convention (ie the overwhelming majority of our readership) it is not at all clear. Hence my request for clarification. We are not writing this for astronomers, we are writing it for a general readership, so we need to avoid using technical conventions which are clear only to specialists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but what we see from Earth is a 300 year old remnant. Not an 11,000+ year old one. That should always stay clear. --Etacar11 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not denying that but it should be possible to make both facts clear, not just the one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but what we see from Earth is a 300 year old remnant. Not an 11,000+ year old one. That should always stay clear. --Etacar11 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- It may well be proper but for anyone unaware of that convention (ie the overwhelming majority of our readership) it is not at all clear. Hence my request for clarification. We are not writing this for astronomers, we are writing it for a general readership, so we need to avoid using technical conventions which are clear only to specialists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
