type Ia supernova[/wiki]. The most likely cause of this kind of supernova – the single-degenerate model, so called because only one of the stars involved, the white dwarf, contains much degenerate matter – is matter being stripped from the normal star companion of a white dwarf, resulting in unbinding of the white dwarf (what could accurately be called an “explosion”) from very high power fusion reactions surrounding it, but not the unbinding of its companion. This is the reason why astronomers such as those mentioned in Menedez’s article search for nearby normal stars with motion consistent of having been blown away from the vicinity of the supernova, which according the article, Tycho G is believed to be.
A less likely model is the double-degenerate, which involves two white dwarfs. However, in this model, on of the stars is ripped apart to supply the infalling matter fused by the other. Although both stars are unbound in this process, an observer describing it would not call it a “double explosion”, because the first start is torn apart over a long period (about 1000 years) before the second is unbound in the brief (about 1 day) powerful supernova event.
In this day of readily available information, you should not hazard such guesses, Majestron. A simple check of a popular source such as the wikipedia article “double star”, would allow you to know that an unambiguous description of a double star appeared no later than 1651, and possible as early as 1616. Well before the 20th century, double stars were well known to professional and armature stargazers. The Burnham Double Star Catalogue, published in 1906, lists 13665 pairs of double stars.
Worse than depriving yourself of easily available information, by not researching your guesses, Majestron, you risk giving readers bad information. This it one of the main reasons hypography’s first rule is
In general, back up your claims by using links or references
ok sorry Craig, my bad, I've only been here like a few days after a long lapse and I really didn't think you were taking this so seriously due to the nature of the comments being spewed and besides that we really are dealing with a topic that carries a very low level of respect and is in the category of Books-Movies and Games.
Paper 41 of this online copy of Urantia book states:
The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight.Unless the Urantia Book and the “Urantia account” are different things, I don’t see how one can claim that “the Urantia account doesn't state that 2 stars exploded”.
It says what it says, I didn't write the revelation. I can think of at least 3 possibilities that someone could interpret that phrase and they are all different. I'm sure you can as well.
Thanks for your comments. I hope I haven't missed anything or pissed anyone off.