Talk:SN 185
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Constellations
editI put this article in two constellation categories, Circinus and Centaurus. If my calculations are correct, the semiplane αB1875=14h32m 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)
X-ray source
editI 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)
Visible during the day?
editThis 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)
- 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)
Scientific verified in ?
editWhen was the Chinese observations first scientifically verified and by whom ? --79.168.11.181 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
Positional "coincidence".
editThe 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)