Talk:Kepler's Supernova

Caveman analogy is scientifically wrong

>Since 6 kiloparsecs is ca. 20,000 light-years the >cosmic event itself happened no earlier than 18,000 BC.

This sentence makes no sense. Since the speed limit is c, and no information can be transmitted faster than c, our time is not the same as the SN1604 time, so a comparison like that is both misleading and incorrect. The sentence would need to be amended to be correct such as:

Since 6 kiloparsecs is ca. 20,000 light-years the cosmic event itself happened no earlier than 18,000 BC, provided supra-luminar travel is possible. If superluminar travel is impossible, which is the firm scientific opinion today, than it is both impossible and meaningless to state when the explosion took place, since a common frame for us and the SN1604 does not exist and cannot be established.

If you know something the author didn't, you're allowed and even encouraged to correct the article. However, the sentence you propose would definitely not improve the article. I've removed the statement that offends you as it is indeed a bit silly and unscientific. I've also messed up the lay-out a bit, I hope someone can improve this. Piet 16:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

The last I heard, we measure our experience of time here on Earth using clocks that are also here on Earth. With respect to our own frame of reference, which is a perfectly valid and useful frame of reference, we experience the event in question as having occurred about 18,000 of our years ago. The idea that we need to know what a clock read at the supernova in order to figure out when the event happened as we see it, and that we have to burden our discourse with long-winded relativistic blither to do so, seems neurotically over-complicated to me. 98.243.173.66 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Euro-centric angle of article

The Chinese version of this article states that this supernova has also been recorded in the Chinese Imperial Archives, the article however suggests that the sighting (and other sightings) are a completely European phenomenon. Article should be rewritten to include Chinese sighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.230.178 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This supernova was easily visible to the unaided eye, with a magnitude of -2.5 at its maximum. I agree that records of observations in China would be interesting. How far they were accurate enough to detect any parallax, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese and Korean observations are now mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Visible during daytime?

At magnitude -2.5 ??? That's "about" as bright as Mars as a Grand Opposition. Not as bright as Jupiter or Venus. So visible daytime????? Doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.165.70 (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Could not have been visible in the daytime at magnitude -2.5. Venus peaks at about -4.x, and it can't be seen during the day. Well, close to sunset or sunrise. Betaneptune (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No farther?

A "no nearer" distance would be very nice to have, as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4400:C76:55B4:8DAC:E7FC:21DC (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why so many page views?

I was looking a the statistics for page views for astronomy articles [1], and this one seems to have by far the most, over articles such as the Solar System and Einstein. I know this is an important supernova, but this is still kind of surprising. Does anybody have an explanation for why this is? Sam-2727 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This page is used to advertise Wikipedia and draw in viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.225.229 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)