Talk:CK Vulpeculae
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Misleading statement
editThe statement that the merger occurred between the years 1670 and 1672 (though copied from the source [1]) is misleading. What the statement really means is that the nova/merger was observed between 1670 and 1672, which is already covered in the bulk of the article. It couldn't have literally occurred between the two years, because the distance of the nova from Earth is about 2000 light years. I suggest removing this part of the statement again. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Short answer: don't go there :) Long answer: most astronomical events are referred to the local time frame, at the time they are observed. Very distant (ie. old) events may be referred to by their redshift, and extremely distant events by their cosmological (or cosmic) time, the time since the Big Bang (in a co-moving frame). Trying to define some "real" time that an event occurred is a mistake made in tabloid newspapers and drunken arguments. There is no "real time", Einstein pretty much killed that cat 100 years ago. You might think it all makes sense, but try and explain that to the guy at CK Vulpeculae who wants to know why you think it erupted 2,000 years ago. Or the guy at Alpha Centauri who agrees with neither of you - there simply isn't a single "real" time stream under relativity and acting like there is leads to much confusion. Like I said, don't go there, its a very deep rabbit-hole and nobody wins. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus and always refers to "nearby" astronomical events at the time that they are observed on Earth (give or take an astronomical unit or so) - previous discussions by the dozen on talk pages all over. Lithopsian (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but still when we look at the article, the part "between 1670 and 1672" adds nothing - when the nova was observed is already covered in the section "Eruptive history". I agree that in astronomy when a particular event "really" occurred is not very relevant; the relevant part is when it was observed (and the event's distance from Earth, if known). That's one more reason to remove this part from the article. (Relativity of simultaneousness is a red herring here, though. The star and our solar system don't move at relativistic speeds relative to each other, so both we and a hypothetical observer at CK Vulpeculae will measure nearly the same distance between the two, and therefore also nearly the same time taken by light to cover the distance.)
Take the article Kepler's Supernova. It says that the supernova was observed in 1604 - but it nowhere says that the star exploded in 1604. So likewise, this article shouldn't say that the stars merged in 1670. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but still when we look at the article, the part "between 1670 and 1672" adds nothing - when the nova was observed is already covered in the section "Eruptive history". I agree that in astronomy when a particular event "really" occurred is not very relevant; the relevant part is when it was observed (and the event's distance from Earth, if known). That's one more reason to remove this part from the article. (Relativity of simultaneousness is a red herring here, though. The star and our solar system don't move at relativistic speeds relative to each other, so both we and a hypothetical observer at CK Vulpeculae will measure nearly the same distance between the two, and therefore also nearly the same time taken by light to cover the distance.)