I am on an email list for archaeology for North and South America, mainly concentrated on early South American cultures (Mayan, Toltec, Incan, etc.). One of the posters came up with this little gem, "In Brazil there is a cave that has a drawing of the nova within the Milky Way, which may not have been seen previously. Several cultures tell us that the Milky Way was a new thing in the skies." [emphasis mine].

While I'm hopeful that this was posted by one of the "armchair archaeologists" in the group and not one of the professionals (or just a slip of the keyboard), either way it's still depressing. Even more depressing is that there were several posts pointing out other factual errors in the post, but no one seemed to see anything wrong with the above statement. I've posted back a polite, "if the Milky Way wasn't here, neither was the Earth" and that we're on the Orion Arm of the MW, but no response as yet.

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

That line is worded particularly roughly, so it might have been a 'typing error'.

The sad state of astronomy education is really disappointing, though - I did a quick survey a while back and to my astonishment several of my mates didn't realise that the sun is a star.

with regards

__________________
All words, phrases, definitions and theories provided in the above post are, unless otherwise stated, the property of Champion Munch © 2005.

Sign up to sue the Sun

On the flip side, a South American site with a reference to a previously unknow nova is pretty cool. IIRC, there have been similar things in old Chinese astronomical references.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

How many of them are verifiable, though? Even if they saw something resembling a nova, how can we prove it was?

with regards

__________________
All words, phrases, definitions and theories provided in the above post are, unless otherwise stated, the property of Champion Munch © 2005.

Sign up to sue the Sun

The best known one is the Crab Nebula one of 1054 ( brief reference ). I have a vague memory of others, but I can't google them up. But if the location in the sky can be determined, finding a nebula at that location now, for example, would verify it.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

It depends on how accurately the location of the nova was recorded by historical observers. The Chinese astronomers who recorded the nova that resulted in the Crab Nebula were capable of providing a precise location.

(edited to add: Wikipedia mentions that Arab astronomers recorded sightings of the Crab Nova as well)

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Thanks for your replies TriangleMan and Swift, but other than the Crab nebula...maybe we have had half a dozen verified. How many claims have there been?

with regards

__________________
All words, phrases, definitions and theories provided in the above post are, unless otherwise stated, the property of Champion Munch © 2005.

Sign up to sue the Sun

I'm willing to forgive that. Most people are taught that stars are "other suns". The obvious corollary is usually saved for obscure trivia games.

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

In my experience, students in early grades are taught that the Earth is a part of the Milky Way galaxy, and that the Sun is a star. I don't think these examples necessarily reflect on the state of astronomy education--more on the state of particular students. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him think.

__________________
http://cleardarksky.com/c/DrhmNCcs0.gif

I'm hopeful that she'll come up with a reputable link for the discovery of this cave painting. There appears to be a 1 day lagtime in the archive so that I can't post a link to her posts yet, but the short version of her points (in my own words):

1. That we are part of the Milky Way galaxy is "only" a theory (this may just be a language problem. English is a second language for a lot of folks on this list.)
2. That our axis is tilted 15-16 degrees (oops!)
3. That this tilt occured "suddenly" during the time period these caves were occupied and being painted in.
4. The sudden tilt is possibly connected in some mysterious way with changes in the Earth's magnetic field.
5. That this sudden tilting changed our view of the Milky Way from a circular object in the sky to the "bar" form we see now. (double oops!)

Those, at least, are the main points. I've posted back and am just waiting to see what the reply might be.

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

Huh. Interesting point. Easy reply: We are definitely in *A* galaxy, and by definition that galaxy is the Milky Way.

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

The Crab Nebula was the only historical example I knew of. Did Tycho Brahe spot one in the 16th century?

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Tycho and Kepler have their names on one supernova and remnant each. Historical records have led to maybe half a dozen more - here is a critical discussion with links. The earliest listed is in AD 185. Including Cas A (which may or may not have been seen by Flamsteed, behind a lot of dust) there are nine such events associated with a supernova remnant.

I claim no expertise in archaeology. If someone contests the archaeological aspects of the following, I'll not argue, as I'm not equipped to do so.

There was an extremely bright supernova in Lupus in AD 1006. I think it was brighter than the more famous SN of AD 1054. A number of years ago my wife and I visited the privately-operated White Mountains Archaeological Center in Arizona. The owner and chief (only?) archaeologist presented his daily talk about the Mimbres culture. The Mimbres people, who lived in western New Mexico, executed numerous pottery bowls that were intended to cover the faces of the dead. Each bowl had a hole hacked into it, to allow the decedent's spirit to escape. The archaeologist showed color slides of various Mimbres bowls. Several bowls bear the image of a rabbit and a bright star. The archaeologist said this represented the Moon and the supernova of AD 1054. Mainly out of a sheer desire to be a bit obnoxious, I asked the archaeologist if this rabbit-star artwork might be the supernova of 1006 instead of that of 1054. He'd never heard of the 1006 supernova. I thought to myself, "How can this man be so sure it's the supernova of 1054 if he hasn't even heard of the brighter one from 46 years earlier?" Now, it happens that Native Americans often saw an image of a rabbit on the face of the Moon (no "man in the Moon" for them), and they sometimes used a picture of a rabbit to represent the Moon, and the waning Moon was near the 1054 supernova when the supernova first appeared in the morning sky. So the archaeologist's conclusion may well have been correct, but it seemed to me he could have benefited from a bit more research into historical supernovae.

This only proves that such records can be untrustworthy, in that their beliefs clash with their observations.

It's funny how everything has to revolve around them....:P

Thanks for the link ngc3314.

with regards

__________________
All words, phrases, definitions and theories provided in the above post are, unless otherwise stated, the property of Champion Munch © 2005.

Sign up to sue the Sun

The sad thing is, in most schools in my area, that is about all we are taught. My last class that even dealt with space science was my sixth grade (I'm going into grade 11) Earth Science course, and we learned basic facts about the planets, what causes seasons, etc.

To this day most of my class mates don't even know what the Oort Cloud is. They ask if it's like a storm cloud. #-o It seems as though only the very basic astronomy is taught. I've looked quickly into the courses offered to high-school students in my county by rival schools, and it seems that the only astronmy even present in high schools here are in low-level Earth Science classes.

So, in my case, you can have a thirsty horse next to water, but have it tied up just out of reach. Almost all of the "neat stuff" about astronomy I know I've had to teach myself. Above my computer monitor is a shelf that holds 22 astronomy and physics books and encyclopedias that I've been buying since I was 12 out of birthday money and Barns & Noble gift cards I get from my uncle for Christmas.

I guess it takes a certain type of person to really be interested in astronomy enough to get excited to learn about it. But, for me, it would be nice if I had the chance to be taught about astronomy. There's a big difference between being taught and self-teaching. Self-teaching is much harder--you don't know what you should know, and you're not sure if you know what you should. Teachers work wonders.

--htx

__________________
Visit Mutated Genes, my X-men fanart site.

I heart Ducky. I stalk Ducky. His hair is quite fluffy, and he makes good cookies. (And now he's my prom date...)

=D> I agree. The last time astronomy was even mentioned was when I was in year 3 (8 years ago) which was an assignment on Jupiter. It was actually this that sparked my interest in astronomy, but since then there's been nothing to speak of.

Maybe in the future (when astronomy becomes more applicable in life) they will teach those kinds of things at school, but for the while we are stuck self-learning.

with regards

__________________
All words, phrases, definitions and theories provided in the above post are, unless otherwise stated, the property of Champion Munch © 2005.

Sign up to sue the Sun

What is sad about astronomy is the unwillingness of the astrophysical community to give the rest of a world a break from needless bean counting.

I mean the insistance that arcane and historical naming, units, and and conventions are preserved rather than simplified and made more logical.

I haven't picked up an organic chemistry text for two decades, but I can still read many complex structures without a map.

Not true of the ABDFC ring of saturns, glactic and star sequences, AUs, Parsecs, luminosity standards, coordinate systems - everything hung over from the slide rule days that intimidate and discourage the general population.

Astronomy is a hazing as much as it is a science. That is unnecessary. There is too much difficult good stuff to learn to leave so many tripping over illogical and obsolete conventions.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.