Talk:SN 1572

Diameter of the Nebula

Please include the diameter of the nebula in the statistics box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.41.193 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be about 20 light years. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7762939.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingstar (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The angular diameter as seen from the earth can be calculated from 20 light years and the distance, such as 8,000 light years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingstar (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo

{{Photo requested}} A picture of the actual nebula would be a welcome addition. Captmondo 13:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There's one now.

Absolute v. Apparent Magnitude confusion

"This corresponds to an absolute magnitude of -15.8, nearly twenty times as bright as a full moon." That is not an accurate comparison for magnitude scales. Absolute magnitude is a magnitude taken from ten parsecs away, whereas the number you cite for the full moon is its apparent magnitude. This section should be elaborated more to limit confusion on the reader's part.

Tycho's Nova/Supernova

There seems to be a certain amount of inconsistency, both within Wikipedia and with external sources, as to whether this supernova should be colloquially known as Tycho's Nova or Tycho's Supernova. At the least the current opening sentence is a little confusing in saying "Tycho's Nova was a supernova". -- Solipsist 22:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

1572 or 1592?

The article title is "SN 1572" but the body text begins by calling it "SN 1592" -- which alone is confusing enough, but this is also the year it gives to Wolfgang Schuler's observation, and says that he was "probably" the first to see it (can someone cite a source on that?), even though that's 20 years AFTER Tycho Brahe's observation. What's going on here? -- Emperne

It seems all of those 92's should just be 72's and that clears everything up. [1] I wonder how that would happen, or how it would remain that way while being showcased on the front page. -VJ 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be because of this SOB -> [2] <- Raul654 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Cassiopeia A

the technical stuff needs rewriting in view of paper in science this week (The Cassiopeia A Supernova Was of Type IIb; Oliver Krause, Stephan M. Birkmann, Tomonori Usuda, Takashi Hattori, Miwa Goto, George H. Rieke, and Karl A. Misselt (30 May 2008); Science 320 (5880), 1195. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1155788]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.129.202 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That article is about Cassiopeia A, not this one (SN 1572). --Jhertel (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Burst Forth?

Is it quite accurate to say the supernova "burst forth" in 1572? If we mean by "burst forth", "became visible upon Earth," then the expression makes sense. However, I wonder if readers will get the impression from "burst forth" that the supernova itself occurred in 1572, whereas the actual supernova occurred something like 6,000 B.C. Is this a problem?Editor437 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The "new star" helped to shatter stale, ancient models of the heavens..." This does not transmit information, save the opprobrium of "stale". The idea of "immutable" might help in recasting sentence. A good example of encyclopedia writing for the general reader might be based on reading this from BBC.--Wetman (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an accepted convention in astronomy, as soon as it's a question of events happening at large distances, to speak of the date/time of an event as the time when its light first reached earth. Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (according to current physics anyway) it would just be confusing to say that the 1054 supernova erupted in the mesolithic - not to mention supernovas in the Andromeda galaxy happening before the ice age!

Also, "supernova" is a fairly modern word, not sure how old but likely not older than the first half of the 20th century (and it really entered popular language at the dawn of the space age I think). Before Eddington and Einstein or so, it was just "nova". Explains why this star is referred to as "Tycho's nova" in older books.83.254.151.33 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tycho's Nova Decision - May 15, 2009

I am moving this message from my talk page to here so that other editors can discuss and decide what might be useful in the article. The user refers to my revert here and the associated external link is Tycho's Nova Report on UBtheNEWS. 84user (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:84user § Tycho's Nova Decision - May 15, 2009

On May 15, 2009, the text below was removed from the "Discovery of the Companion Star" section of the article on SN 1572 (Tycho's Nova). The justification was "remove new age junk". While I do understand the origin of this misconception, I would like the opportunity to correct it so as to open the door for a significant number of other, similar contributions.

The modern standard model for Type Ia supernovae explosions is founded on a proposal by Whelan and Iben in 1973, and is based upon a mass-transfer scenario to a degenerate companion star. However, the first published assertion that Tycho's Nova had its origins as Type 1a supernovae is to be found in The Urantia Book, which was published in 1955. It states: "The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions . . . was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached [Earth] in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight." For an appreciation of the omitted text in the previous quote, see the The Tycho's Nova Report published on UBtheNEWS (see external links below).

I would be most appreciative if a dialogue could be initiated wherein these facts can be presented and evaluated.

Thank You, joedimaggio0521 Jacksonville, Florida, USA

--Joe DiMaggio, Jacksonville, Florida (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that a set of criteria be established in the effort to determine whether the subject matter in The Urantia Book pertaining to Tycho's Nova is relevant and credible. Have there been other situations in Wikipedia's history that are similar where a precedent can be referenced?

I defer to the editors experience on this and I ask that each who decide to enter into the discussion read the UBtheNEWS report on Tycho's Nova to gain an understanding of the correlation of Urantia Book material with that of human scientific discovery since it's publication.

Also please keep in mind, while reading, that the report was written by two PhD level scientists as well as a Juris Doctor, none of whom participate in any "New Age" activity of any kind. I should also point out, additionally, that I do not either. In fact, it is my personal belief that The Urantia Book and what has become known as "New Age" are fundamentally different subjects and have only become confused in recent years through error and misunderstanding of The Urantia Book and the material contained in it.

Thank You for this opportunity and I look forward to our discussion.

--Joe DiMaggio, Jacksonville, Florida (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The criteria would be the policies Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research and the guideline (ie. open to interpretation) Wikipedia:Notability. I think there have been similar cases to this, but no precedent as these tend to be argued on a case by case basis. Examples are: Dogon people#Dogon and Sirius; Sirius#Dogon with a link to The Sirius Mystery; and Zeta Reticuli. It might be that The Urantia Book is a better location. Not many editors may see this discussion here, so I've posted a note at two Wikiprojects that look relevant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts. 84user (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an equitable way to proceed. I will review that material in detail while yourself and other editors are reviewing the Tycho Report on UBtheNEWS and The Urantia Book. I do want to point out that the Wikipedia page on The Urantia Book has a great deal of information on it that is either erroneous or is presented in such a way that is misleading (e.g. Martin Gardner, Matthew Block).

The best way to evaluate material in The Urantia Book is to ignore all material about the book and just read the book itself. Yes, it is a big read, but I have found in my multi-decade study of it (and of those associated with it), that without an advanced understanding of the core material in The Urantia Book, it is nearly impossible to segregate the accurate meta-information from the inaccurate. The information in The Urantia Book regarding Tycho's Nova can be found here: Again, I reference this site because of the ability to link directly to paragraphs within the original text, the surrounding site (truthbook.com) tends to focus on smaller pieces of the total Urantia Book body of information.

I have found, however, that the information on UBtheNEWS which addresses specific correlations of human scientific discovery since the publication of The Urantia Book with material contained therein (like Tycho's Nova), have remained objective and are a good source (due to that objectivity) for individuals who are not familiar with the book to gain a fundamental understanding of the subject matter which UBtheNEWS has published reports on. It should be mentioned that the scope of the material in The Urantia Book goes far beyond material science and, when given it's due dilligence, does an effective job of harmonizing science with religion and with philosophy to the curious and critical mind.

In summary, if we are to engage in a critical discussion of these matters, it will serve all involved well to limit supporting evidence and arguments to The Urantia Book itself contrasted to authentic human scientific discovery to date.

--Joe DiMaggio, Jacksonville, Florida (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(from WikiProject Astronomy) There is no reason to mention the The Urantia Book in this astronomy article. It is not relevant. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Current text

The current text of the article speaks of " the need for more precise astronomical observing instruments". This need was apparent before 1572. When the telescope was introduced, it was more by luck than judgement and some time after 1572. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.92.144 (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The current text refers to "a revolution in astronomy". This seems to refer to the opinions of Copernicus and Galileo, which were similar to those of Pythagoras. Pythagoras lived well before 1572 A.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.92.144 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The article on SN 1604 is free from the peacock wording in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.214.77 (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) The article on SN 1054 is free from peacock wording, also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.214.77 (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC) All three had an equal tendency to cause many to revise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC) All eight supernovae visible to the unaided eye in historical times had the same effect on astronomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.49.237 (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572~~Supernova remnant~~Radio detection: Hi: In the blue box in top-right hand corner, the Distance is 13,000 light-years (4.0 kpc) but under supernova remnant - Radio detection, it states: SN 1572 is associated with the radio source G.120·1+1·4. It has an apparent diameter of 7.4 arc minutes, and is located approximately 7,500 light-years (2.3 kpc) from our Solar system. This is confusing. Please clarify distances so they are understandable & tally, rather than vague figures, which spoil the fantastic reputation of wikipedia. Thnx:Rafi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.7.234 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, 188.222.7.234, the two distances should be equal to one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.192.176 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the article to reflect a more recent estimation of the distance and, at the same time, removed the confusion of having two different distances mentioned. Fueled (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tycho's supernova remnant

Interesting news story:

"Tycho's supernova remnant: New evidence on origin of supernovas found". Physorg. April 26, 2011. Retrieved 2011-04-27.

Regards, RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

X-Ray observation

The section on "X-Ray Observation appears to directly quote, word for word, from this source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uW4Oq2al8oYC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Cepheus+X-1+supernova&source=bl&ots=YoZLPy_0As&sig=lq2opTvWreWU9kx6-suuUTYGMgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtn6yX7aHfAhXDT98KHYShAfo4ChDoATAIegQIBxAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The book you are referring to is "Tycho Brahe", with stated editor: "By Wikipedians", so the book actually contains text from Wikipedia. 🙂 So the section is not plagiarized. But thanks for the well-intentioned tip. --Jhertel (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Videos fail to play on this page

When clicking the videos on this page, the mini-player does not open. There's a brief flash but then nothing appears. It seems to happen with all videos on the page. If you open the video link directly (e.g. in a new tab), then it is able to play. And this doesn't affect any other pages as far as I can tell. So there seems to be something wrong with the markup on this specific page, but I don't know what. I've tested this on Firefox and Edge. Aminomancer (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)