© NASA/CXC/MIT/UMass Amherst/M.D.Stage et al.An X-ray image of the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant made with the Chandra X-ray observatory.
The supernova remnant Cassiopeia A (Cas A) is the relic of the explosion of a massive star that took place around 11,000 years ago and is one of the brightest radio sources in the sky. Oddly, although the light from the explosion should have reached the Earth in the seventeenth century and been easily visible in the sky, it appears to have gone unnoticed.
Now astronomer Martin Lunn and historian Lila Rakoczy argue that the supernova was seen - as a 'new' star visible during the day at the birth of the future King Charles II of Great Britain. They will present their controversial idea on Monday 18 April, at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales.
The date the explosion of Cas A would have been seen on Earth is a long-standing mystery in the history of astronomy but the generally accepted period is the latter half of the seventeenth century. Mr Lunn, former Curator of Astronomy at the Yorkshire Museum and Dr Rakoczy, a US-based independent scholar, suggest instead that Cas A could have been seen earlier - on 29 May 1630.
This date is better known to historians as the day the future King Charles II of Great Britain was born and also significant for a 'noon-day star' alleged to have appeared at his birth, an important feature of later Stuart/Restoration propaganda. Separate sources refer to the star over a period of about 30 years.
The star has been widely discussed by historians and literary scholars but its credibility as a genuine astronomical event has remained largely unexplored. Mr. Lunn and Dr Rakoczy believe that it deserves further investigation.
Mr. Lunn comments, "The number and variety of sources that refer to the new star strongly suggest that an astronomical event really did take place.
Our work raises questions about the current method for dating supernovae, but leads to the exciting possibility of solving a decades-old astronomical puzzle."
Comment: Also, consider another candidate for a 'noon-day star' of 29th of May,1630. One of the corollaries of the Nemesis (Planet X, brown dwarf) theory is that the dark companion might well become visible as a second sun in the sky when it was closest to the sun.
From
Independence Day by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:
A second sun was seen on and around May 29, 1630, and 20 or 30 years later a lot of new comets showed up just as we would expect - the first wave to have been flung in by a companion star that briefly lit up to scare the bejeebies out of everyone at the time. And we do see that the effects of this event were exactly as we would have expected them to be, only it seems to have been covered up and/or forgotten, for the most part in its historical context. Also, there have been attempts to describe this second sun as a "comet." It's possible, of course, but it seems that, in such a case, it would have been described as a "flaming star," which was equally portentous. The observers of the time had no problem distinguishing between comets and other observational anomalies.
So why it was described as a "second sun" is an interesting question. Could it have been a supernova?
Checking the records of the various supernovae, nothing fits this period - either Cass A or Kepler's SN or Tycho's SN... How this relates to Flamsteed's star, when he actually observed it, and other details remain to be determined by collecting data.
Later on, John Dryden suggested that the comets of 1664 and 1665 were related to the Sun that was seen at the birth of Charles II. He described this apparition as "That bright companion of the sun...."
All kinds of comparisons were made suggesting that Charles' birth was similar to the birth of Jesus, and it was conjectured that just such a sun had appeared at that event also. So, even if we have very little to go on, we might take these interpretations as indicative that this "noon-day sun" was in view for a while.
What IS interesting is how, other than this sort of commentary, all other records of this phenomenon have sort of disappeared - unless, of course, the author of this book found them to be too crazy and just omitted a lot of them.
So, it seems that we have found some descriptive evidence that may "fit" with the hypothesis that the companion sun was at perihelion on May 29, 1630, or close enough for horseshoes. And that the comets that followed 20 or 30 years later were an initial group that was flung in or pushed in with this star. If we are correct and the disturbance in the Oort cloud was prolonged for hundreds of years as the star passed through, and that the disturbance resulted in masses of comets entering the solar system in a spiraling motion, it just may be that there are some really big ones out there on their way in to the "target" from ALL directions.
Of course, the mentioned article was written over 8 years ago, and prior to the recent research by Martin Lunn and historian Lila Rakoczy. But it's SOTT editors current assessment that the hypothesis of the companion sun being a "noon-day sun" remains worthy of consideration.
Comment: Also, consider another candidate for a 'noon-day star' of 29th of May,1630. One of the corollaries of the Nemesis (Planet X, brown dwarf) theory is that the dark companion might well become visible as a second sun in the sky when it was closest to the sun.
From Independence Day by Laura Knight-Jadczyk: Of course, the mentioned article was written over 8 years ago, and prior to the recent research by Martin Lunn and historian Lila Rakoczy. But it's SOTT editors current assessment that the hypothesis of the companion sun being a "noon-day sun" remains worthy of consideration.