So, just this last week on Februray 18th, only six days ago, an “amateur” astronomer took a “photo” of a supernova only 80 million light years away. Man, talk about a serious camera, right?

Before I get into this thing I wanted to lay out what exactly a supernova is. A supernova is a transient astronomical event that occurs during the last stellar “evolutionary stages” of a massive star’s life, whose dramatic and catastrophic destruction is marked by one final titanic explosion. This material as it spreads out allows for its mass to be reformed with other materials to form “new” stars.

kepler-snburp-point1second-nograph-1280x720-shorter-10lossy.gif

The primary article that I first read regarding this new supernova being seen in action was from the Los Angeles Times. The title of the article reads as follows; An amateur astronomer testing a new camera happens to catch a supernova as it’s being born.

When I read the title, the first thing that comes to my mind is an amateur astronomer. I have a few friends that have some pretty new telescopes at home. With that, I would consider them to be enthusiasts. You know… amateurs. The types of cameras and telescopes they tend to be able to afford and use look like the following.

stron

The amateur astronomer that took the “photo” was Victor Buso. He used a 1-Meter Swope telescope, which also happened to be attached to the Carnegie Institution for Science, Las Campanas Observatory, in Chile. The “camera” that he used was the following “telescope”… you know, because “amateur“.

ammoi.pngAnd yet, when you look up other articles on this topic you will be shown completely different equipment and locations. Like, so…

super-nova.png

So, which is it? One article says that he took the images from the roof of his home. And another article says the images were taken in a science lab.

Now, I could sit here and go even further by talking out the logic that goes into what it actually means to “take a photo” against what actually happens within an observatory by gathering none observable “data“.  But, I won’t. And the reason why is simple.

I don’t need to.

If these people can’t keep their story straight, why believe anything  they say? If you want to believe in evolution you go right ahead. But, if you want to get technical about it, the only evolution that has even been observed doesn’t seem to be a reliable source.

Leave a Reply