Talk:G1.9+0.3

Doubts

There are severe doubts in the Russian, Indian, Chinese, Brazilian and partly German academic community that this is a supernova remnant. "The fact that NASA has so ‘continually failed’ in their explanations for this giant, and growing, “as yet unknown” space object as to have lost all credibility in any discussion of it." Article needs severe revamp and expansion, it doesn't even talk about it's effects on the Oort cloud or that Spanish authorities claim an G1.9 perturbed Oort cloud object was responsible for the 2009 Jupiter impact. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any doubt in the academic community, can you give a reference? --130.179.72.179 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the scientific literature http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?submit=display&bibdisplay=refsum&bibyear1=1850&bibyear2=%24currentYear&Ident=%402496698&Name=SNR+G001.9%2B00.3#lab_bib shows that every astronomer that has published work on G1.0+0.3 thinks it's a Type IA supernova remnant. It's located about half way across the galaxy which is way way too far away to have any influence on the Oort Cloud or Jupiter. --70.113.70.38 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Image?

Any image? 118.71.81.251 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy ?? (moved from main article)

Interestingly enough, as soon the discovery of this Supernova has been made official, some rumors started circulating, about whether or not this object is a Supernova, like the NASA pretend. In fact, everything indicates that this object can not be a Supernova. Here are a couple of facts :

I finally refrained from deleting all that, with the vague hope that my comments might be of some educational value. --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Firt of all, when the NASA announced and made public the discovery, they also mentionned that this Supernova explosion would have occur around 140 years ago...

There are 2 problems concerning this information.

First, they already mentionned, like stated above, that the Supernova is at a distance of 25 000 light years, which would make senses since most Supernovas we discovered are usually between 25 000 and 40 000 light years from the Earth. However, if the Supernova is INDEED at a 25 000 light years distance, than it is completly impossible that the explosion occured 140 years ago. Like the name implies, it would take 25 000 years for the light to come to us, in that case, and we wouldn't see it before that time has passed.

NASA's wording is indeed unfortunate, but suggesting they are not aware of the fact that distance implies delay is not serious. The point you missed, is that when we talk about a supernova event, we are referring to an event which happened on the Earth (a new star in the sky). So what they actually wanted to say, is that the light of the explosion reached the Earth about 140 years ago. --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Even accepting that definition as "age", isn't SN1987 at least 70 years "younger"? "Youngest Supernova" is a misleading qualification regardless. 64.7.45.42 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Secondly, if indeed the explosion occured 140 years ago, like the NASA pretend in their own announcement ( [1] ), in that case we, the Earth, would have been totally irradiated, and we all would, of course, not be here to read about the discovery today.

Wrong, it is harmless at that distance - no matter when it happened. --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Those people convinced that the NASA's are hiding something are pretending it is because they know that this object in particular is, of course, not a Supernova. That in fact, this object could be a brown dwarf, a star that never got to ignite, and that it would be heading in the direction of our solar system - since it's the companion of our sun and our solar system, which would be a binary system.

Obviously pure speculation. Why a brown dwarf? Why hiding it? --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, NASA already knows and agrees that over 80% of the stars are not alone, that they are often found in a binary system, or even a system with 3 or more stars orbiting together. As much this brown dwarf theory sounds ridiculous to a lot of people, the project of the NASA to launch the WISE ( Wide-field Infrared Survey ), on the 1st November 2009, seems to confirm their concern about the possibilty of this situation. Since the task of this Satellite will be to "study dim stars such as brown dwarfs, asteroids, and the most luminous infrared galaxies."

The last two facts are correct - but of course don't prove anything. --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

On top of that, even the name of the object indicates that NASA knew at some point that this was not a Supernova. Supernovas are normally named with the prefix "SN", and not 'G' ... Just like this huge Supernova they also discovered : [2] The name of this Supernova is SN 2006gy, which follows that logics. In fact, the 'G' is actually used for exotic astronomical objects, which G1.9 was at first when it was discover, because they didn't think it was a Supernova.

Indeed, G1.9 was not a supernova, as it was not observed at the (delayed) moment of the explosion. Otherwise, it would have a "SN" number (the year when it was recorded). The object was only detected 140 years or so later, as a supernova remnant. Thus, as all supernova remnants in the Galaxy, it was given a "G" number (its Galactic coordinates). --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What is sure, is that what strongly looks like a cover-up by the NASA to a lot of people, will only help this theory of a whole conspiracy.

I googled this story and was totally amazed by the amount of buzz generated. Finally, maybe the conspiracy theory deserves its own section! But it would deal about sociology, not astrophysics… --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to say all the recents event happening now in mid-2009 are also used to fortify this theory of an incoming object :

No need, indeed. --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter being hit with big Asteroids : [3] which NASA didn't see, until an amateur noticed the black spot in the planet.

The Venus bright spots : [4]

Some are even talking about an increase in the Oort cloud activities, disturbed by the incoming object, which would explain those recent asteroids crashed on Jupiter. Some also mentionned that Pluto orbit's has changed in 2009, and that it is being irradiated by this object. However this could be explain by the fact that Pluto always had a chaotic orbit, which is meeting Neptune's orbit at some point.

A lot of people actually associated this phenomen with the Planet X prophecies, as it is mentionned in the Bible, and that in that case, according to a lot of them it would also confirm the Mayan's prophecies also, about the December 21, 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.132.220 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Wording in Article Intro

The lead paragraph talks about how this supernova is the "youngest" known in the Milky Way, by talking about when light from the explosion first began reaching Earth. The "ages" of 140 years ago vs 330 years ago for Cassiopeia A. However, the articles states the supernova remnant is located about 25,000 light-years away, while the Cassiopeia article indicates that that remnant is about 11,000 light-years away. It should be obvious that these distances mean that the Cassiopeia explosion was the more recent, from the perspective of the Galaxy, not from our stupid Earth-centric viewpoint, by roughly 14,000 years!

Yes, but observations are made by earthlings, dude. What matters, is that we observe this remnant (today), as it was 140 years after the explosion. We don't care, when the explosion actually happened, nor how the remnant looks right now. What is useful to know is that, with G1.9+0.3, we have an image of a 140 years old remnant. Whereas for Cas A, we have an image of a 330 years old remnant - which, you will agree, is older. --130.179.72.179 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Location & imagery

The article text give the location in Saggitarius, but the data box gives a RA-Dec combination that points to Saggitarius (just off the "teapot spout") but reports it in the constellation of Draco. Which is not even an antipode. Very weird. I'll correct that.

Searching SIMBAD under the title of the article gives an identifier of "GRS G001.90 +00.30", the discovery gamma ray source. The DSS imagery of that location is unenthralling - lots of very red sources. Figure 1 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.07418.pdf , is Open Access, and is captioned :

"Figure 1. Matched resolution 6-cm images of Galactic SNR (centred at RA(J2000)=17h48m45s.4, Dec(J2000)=-27◦10′06′′) at multiple epochs. Left to right, top to bottom, 2009 ATCA, 2008 VLA,1993 ATCA, 1989 VLA and 1984 VLA"

The expansion is noticeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Karley (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Paradoxes

If the explosion light reached the Earth between 1890 and 1908, then why is the date in the infobox written 1985?! Also, how is this supernova event followed by the 1885 event?! The 1885 event was older. Aminabzz (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't make it very clear, but the 1985 date is the date of discovery, not the date of the event itself. Also, it is taken from Wikidata, which is very poorly-sourced and basically just copied from Hebrew Wikipedia, which is not at all reliable. Since this article explicitly says it was discovered in 1984 (or at least published in 1984 in a peer-reviewed paper), I have changed Wikidata. Not sure I have referenced it correctly there, but it is better than it was before. Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)