Talk:SN 185

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Constellations[edit]

I put this article in two constellation categories, Circinus and Centaurus. If my calculations are correct, the semiplane α_B1875=14^h32^m slices right through RCW 86, leaving part of it in Circinus and part in Centaurus. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't found anything about this on the Web; surely I can't be the first person to have noticed that RCW 86 straddles a constellation boundary? -- Evil-mer0dach 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray source[edit]

I would like to see some less technical commentary in the X-ray source section (i.e. why is it significant?) Kevink707 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visible during the day?[edit]

This Wikipedia article says that it was visible in the night sky but the a BBC television program called Cosmos (currently available on Netflix) said it was visible to the Chinese during day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.235.133 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original record, as reported in Chin et al., does not mention daytime visibility. This appears to be an inference by some modern astronomers, based on their assumptions of what kind of event it was. If a collapse supernova, it may well have been visible during the day; if Type Ia (as seems likely), it would have reached perhaps the magnitude of Venus, which would have been hard to see during the day near the southern horizon. Chin's reading as a comet doesn't seem very plausible. -- Elphion (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific verified in ?[edit]

When was the Chinese observations first scientifically verified and by whom ? --79.168.11.181 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you're asking. As the article says, the original Chinese records can be interpreted in different ways, so it's not clear what kind of object they saw. On the assumption that it was a supernova, there is a conveniently placed SN remnant of about the right age at about the right position with about the right characteristics -- and it's reasonable to attribute the Chinese observations to it. But given the imprecise character of the original description, how would you "verify" that? -- Elphion (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positional "coincidence".[edit]

The proper motion of Proxima Centauri is quite large, and in the "right" direction, such that at the time this supernova was observed, it would be been "almost" line of sight with Promixa. That is probably only a "cosmic coincidence" :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.165.70 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]