FYI, I'll need to do some cleanup when I rework this video. 1) The Anasazi apparently painted that rock at different times and the "star" resembles more some Hopi mythological characters. Here is the study as well the article in Scientific American: blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/e28098supernovae28099-cave-art-myth-debunked/. So I'll need to edit and remove this when I remake this video... 2) This video preceded the detection of gravitational waves from the collision of 2 neutron stars. It is these collisions that are now known to create gold, platinum, and the other very "heavy" metals, and not these kinds of supernovae. I'll need to fix this too in a later edition of this video. 3) I'l need to clarify the type of supernova SN1604 was. This investigation chats about it: chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/kepler/index.html
JASON this probably isn't true in a normal supernova from low to high but from neutron star collisions from high to low elements down to nickel. In studying the mud in the Pacific in the last 3 million years iron 60 was layered 2 or 3 times but no Plutonium was found which indicates our lanthanides and rare earth elements seem only from neutron stars.
I was googling about this Anasazi painting because it looked to me as over-stretch and indeed it looks like this is very speculative and not really backed by science. It seems that parts of that painting are made at different times and the "star" resembles more some Hopi mythological characters etc. Here is the study as well the article in Scientific American: docplayer.net/49029101-Star-trek-recovery-and-review-of-the-first-alleged-supernova-rock-art.html blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/e28098supernovae28099-cave-art-myth-debunked/
Thanks for this. It is compelling circumstantial evidence. But I’ve always known that it was very low in the sky. The arrangement I noted is was only visible for one night. It would have had to be clear. Tricky stuff. However if they did see it at that moment, then it would likely have been nearly immediately after the supernova went off. It’s a lot to put together I admit. And others have clearly studied it more than I.
@@JasonKendallAstronomer I completely understand the passion for supernova explanations. But it may be a force leading bit astray. I did notice that from all of the old civilizations that we KNOW about (Greek, Norse, Christian, Jewish etc) they do have nearly ZERO presence of supernovas in their mythology (or much of the astronomy in general). For the Protestantism can "blame" Gutenberg who printed the Bible, and people started reading the actual text for themselves. There is no mention of heavenly bodies (except of deities perhaps) in the 95 thesis of Martin Luther nailed to his church's door. I think it would be cautious thing to not to use supernova explanations in context of mythologies or civilizations that we do NOT know much about, because it may look like use of argument from the gaps.
Once again, another great and beautiful video. It's always fascinating when you talk about astronomy, physics and history all together. Congratulations!
Another great lecture, but again it precedes the Ligo intercept of the gravitational waves from the collision of 2 neutron stars which informed us that it is these collisions which create gold, platinum, and the other very "heavy" metals, not supernovae.
Are you sure the 1604 SN was a type II? Wiki has it listed as a IA. And I don't notice any bright spot from a pulsar in the center of the nebula pictures.
It's kind of up for grabs. From the Chandra Observatory press release: "Astronomers have studied Kepler intensively over the past three decades with radio, optical, and X-ray telescopes, but its origin has remained a puzzle. On the one hand, the presence of large amounts of iron and the absence of a detectable neutron star points toward a so-called Type Ia supernova. These events occur when a white dwarf star pulls material from an orbiting companion until the white dwarf becomes unstable and is destroyed by a thermonuclear explosion. On the other hand, when viewed in optical light, the supernova remnant appears to be expanding into dense material that is rich in nitrogen. This would suggest Kepler belongs to a different type of supernova (known as "Type II") that is created from the collapse of a single massive star that sheds material before exploding. Type Ia supernovas do not normally have such surroundings."
@@JasonKendallAstronomer Thanks for replying to these comments even two years later. I think everyone needs to realize that science progresses with time! Classifications change, and so does what we know, in a rather short period! Astronomy progresses quickly at times and slowly at times.
