In my opinion, SN1987a was actually 3 supernovae.
The evidence can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/sn1987a/

Ring formation from a single Supernova can be explained as the collision of ejecta from both hemispheres of the star at the equatorial plane:
http://peaceharris.googlepages.com/RingFormation.htm

regards.

It is never good to start an abstract with a big mistake in the first sentence,



The big problem here is that Nova Cygni 1992 is not a supernova, the star did not explode. There was an thermonuclear explosion on the surface of the star but that is not the same thing.

You make the same basic error in your "3 supernova" paper,



Nova and supernova are not the same thing. Planetary nebula are not the same as the debris from a supernova and in fact are formed by stars to small to go supernova.

With the greatest of respect if you do not understand the difference between a nova and a supernova how do you expect to be taken seriously when you try to convince people that the scientific world have got their inturreptation of SN 1987A wrong?

Based on observation, how do you tell that the mechanism behind a star that suddenly becomes very bright is thermonuclear explosion?

My explanation for ring formation isn't affected my the mechanism by which a star explodes, I just assume that particles at the surface acquires a radial component outwards. Whether the mechanism is thermonuclear explosion, or material rebounding from a core collapse, I don't know. In fact, recently in the March 2007 issue of National Geographic, Stan Woosley proposed some other kind of theory that I hadn't heard about. My theory of ring formation is independent of the mechanism by which the explosion occurs, all I assume is that particles at the surface acquire a radial component outward, angular momentum and energy is conserved, and the particle is a ballistic particle after the explosion.

Lastly, when did I claim or imply that Nova Cygni 1992 is a supernova? Here's a picture of a SN remnant E0102-72.



Rings have been observed around Nova and Supernova. My theory for Ring formation holds for both of these, independent of the underlying mechanism by which a stellar explosion is believed to occur.

You would have to ask someone that is a bit lot more expert than me that, but as you are proposing that the model currently used by the astronomical community is incorrect this is something you really should know and understand.


The problem is that you are trying to explain the formation of rings where there are no rings. Planetary nebulae and supernova remnants are NOT two dimensional rings. They are actually three dimensional and (when symetrical) spherical. They appear ring shaped for the same reason that a bubble or glass sphere looks darker at the edges, you are looking at more material there.



I apologise for the quality of the picture, I was never much of an artist. What it shows though is my point. Light from the edges of the nebula pass through more material than light from the centre of the nebula give a ring like appearance.

You have assumed a lot, which is unfortunate as you have based your entire hypothesis on a fundemental misunderstanding of the actual shape of the objects you are trying to explain.


You implied it every time you refered to it as a star that exploded. I repeat it is not a star that exploded, it is a star that experience an explosion on it's surface. This is a fundemental difference. A nova can occur multiple times, very difficult if the progenator has been destroyed in an explosion.

If the ring is due to limb-brightening of a sphere because the line of sight towards the edge intersects more material, we would expect the ring to be just slightly brighter than inside.

But the relative darkness inside the ring compared to the ring itself, suggests that it is a physical ring structure.




I repeat: My explanation for ring formation isn't affected my the mechanism by which a star explodes. Neither is it affected whether you call it a Nova, type 1 supernova or type II supernova. You can call it 'an explosion on it's surface' and suit yourself. Why do you want to argue about the words used when you don't know what observations prove that a thermonuclear explosion happened on the surface?

Whether it is something happening on the surface, or whether it is something happening at the core, material is ejected outward. My article doesn't discuss the mechanism and the theory of explosion. It just relies on the assumption that the sudden brightness is because the stellar surface is ejected outward.

If these structures are all rings and not spheres why do we always observe them to be almost exactly pole on to us. Statisticlly the odds of this are so high as to be virtually impossible.

At least a particular issue on how different processes appear across space has been raised by "peaceharris".

And, here is another thing to consider. Board member "EmpressStarXVII" raised this to our attention the other day.

Bipolar Nebula


You might also find this interesting, as it fits in with your idea-

Explaining the pearl necklace of SNR 1987A by coherent optics-

0702075

The natural assumption is that these rings are circles.
If an ellipse fits the observed ring, we can say that it is a tilted circle. If a circle fits, we can say we are viewing it 'pole on to us'

There are elliptical rings: SN1987a, Nova Cygni 1992, DQ Her.

There are also circular rings: QU Vul

How many other circular and elliptical Nova/ Supernova rings you have seen that makes you conclude statistically they always are almost pole on to us?

A simple question for you then. If these structures are two dimensional, rings where are the edge on examples? The examples YOU have provide would have to have come from stars which are pole on or NEARLY pole on to us. This is clearly nonsense. An equal number of stars show be seen equator on or nearly equator on to us. I take it you know why planetary nebulae are so called? It is because there shape makes them look like a planet in a slightly unfocused telescope. The very name suggests that they always appear as circular or nearly circular. If you are correct in your assumption that these structures truly are rings then they should appear in equal numbers in each of the following shapes and every variation in between:


(once again I apologise for the poor art work).

It doesn not take much research to discover that this is not the case. That leaves us with only two explanations for a structure appearing to always look like a circle (or a near circular ellipse), either:

1. It is a circle and is always orientated the same way, ie virtually pole on to us.
2. It is a three dimensional sphere and hence will look circular from any position.

If you wish to look into this to see whether I am right then blackskies.org web site has a nice gallery of planetary nebulae: HERE. Whilst not every planetary nebula is ring shaped it doesn't take too long to realise that the vast majority are. It also becomes obvious that those that are irregular in shape are the less compact and therefore older examples. These have had time to be disrupted by the solar wind and magnetic fields of their star and also by the interstellar wind. The young, compact objects are almost always circular are nearly circular.

Now if you wish to show that your theory is correct you will have to address this objection. You will have to either provide the examples and statistics to show that there are the correct number of edge on ring shaped planetary nebula and supernova remnants OR you will have to explain why these objects are orientated so that they will always appear circular.

There is a third alternative. Do the research. Learn the difference between supernova remnants and planetary nebula. Learn the mechanisms that generate them. Learn what shape they actually are. Then when you understand that which you are trying to explain compare your hypothesis with the observed reality. I suspect if you do this with in a logical and scientific manner you will come to the conclusion that you have proposed an explanation for a structure that doesn't actually exist. it that point the honest and scientific thing to do would be to abandon this hypothesis of yours. Then the next time you attempted a scientific hypothesis hopefully you will have learned that it is best to base it on observed facts rather than personal assumptions.