Survivor of Super Nova

[shadowmane]

https://www.seeker.com/space/hubble-cap ... -explosion

Hubble has detected the survivor of a supernova. I suspect it's not a survivor, but the star itself, after coming into contact with another star, or capturing a planet or small planetary system. The "companion" isn't a companion at all, but the original star. What think you?

[D_Archer]

Correct, there never was a double star.

It is not a survivor, it was always the same star.

Regards,
Daniel

[neilwilkes]

The insanity of some "explanations" never ceases to amaze me!
If as claimed the Supernova was the massive explosion of a star in it's death throes pray tell how in the heavens it managed to leave it's "companion" untouched?
The EU explanation of an electrically stressed object de-stressing by fissioning just makes much more sense to me.

[D_Archer]

The EU explanation of an electrically stressed object de-stressing by fissioning just makes much more sense to me.

not really, since we have no evidence of fissioning, we only have have evidence of 1 star.

Nova are more like births of stars via the z-pinch and the 'not explosions' are energy outbursts from the formation process.

And small nova are indeed more likely to be capture events. Capture events could be traced by being events that emit high amounts of x-ray.

Regards,
Daniel

[neilwilkes]

Sorry Daniel but we will have to agree to disagree here and until we get a much, much better look at the region right now you cannot state for certain there is no companion.
Yes, I will absolutely agree Star formation is via Z-Pinch, no argument there. It is supernova I am talking about here but I shall shut up for now & go look for more information on stress fissioning.

[nick c]

The EU explanation of an electrically stressed object de-stressing by fissioning just makes much more sense to me.

not really, since we have no evidence of fissioning, we only have have evidence of 1 star.

The survivor star in the article was a companion to the star that went supernova. Therein lies the mystery for mainstream, how could it survive one of the most powerful explosions known to science?
from the article:

The new Hubble images reveal a second star — the supernova's surviving companion — which suggests that some supernovas originate in double-star systems, according to a statement from NASA.

It seems to me that mainstream found a stellar companion after the observed event. It never occurs to them (because they are wedded to their preconceived misunderstanding of stellar evolution) that the original star could have fissioned into two. That is, the so called survivor did not survive the supernova event because it was not there before the event.
Unless it can be shown that previous to the supernova event the companion already existed, then yes, this fits in nicely with the fissioning scenario.

[Aardwolf]

I doubt they can resolve individual stars that close together from 40 million light years away, so there's no way of telling if it was a companion before, although apparently a lot of supernova's leave "companions". I think it seems more likely that supernova's are not "exploding" stars and are just a local electromagnetic event of some sort acting on the star. Like this one that's been inexplicably supernovaring on and off for at least 60 years;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTF14hls

None of the theories nor proposed hypotheses fully explain all aspects of the object.

What a surprise...

[nick c]

Yes, it is unlikely that there is evidence of that system being or not being a double star before the supernova event. The point I was trying for was that the end result is consistent with the Electric Star hypothesis. Certainly there could very well be a nova or supernova event in the future which does have a pre event observation.
I am not sure how they could resolve individual stars in binary system from that distance (40 million ly) or what are their methods since they seem to have derived a great deal of information about this stellar system.

[Aardwolf]

Yes, it is unlikely that there is evidence of that system being or not being a double star before the supernova event. The point I was trying for was that the end result is consistent with the Electric Star hypothesis. Certainly there could very well be a nova or supernova event in the future which does have a pre event observation.

It needs to be in our galaxy and it probably needs to be a star we already know is either binary or singular. The problem is the last supernova in our galaxy 400 years ago is in a dense region likely containing hundreds of stars. No way of really knowing either way after the event. Of course they say the star that went supernova is gone but they would say that to hold up the theory.

I am not sure how they could resolve individual stars in binary system from that distance (40 million ly) or what are their methods since they seem to have derived a great deal of information about this stellar system.

It's all based on theory. All they have for evidence is a brightened star that wasn't bright before nor after the event. And because according to them there is no electricity in space something caused the star to "explode".