JonnyMcA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would tend to go with the principle of least
> astonishment when it comes to the 14C signal. We
> know the sun is capable of producing large flares
> such as the Carrington event. Melott &
> Thomas demonstrated that it need only take a
> flare that is only moderately larger (20 times the
> Carrington event if I remember correctly) than the
> Carrington event, or indeed a series of large
> flares over an extended period of time to create
> the signal, opposed to a single large transient
> gamma ray event. There is also a paper to appear
> in the Astrophysical Journal Letters (pre-print
> here ) which discusses the idea that a large comet
> colliding with the sun could release high energy
> flares that could also explain the 774/775 event.
> So I wouldnt rule out events in our own solar
> system before looking further a field.
>
> These hypotheses tend to be suggested because of a
> lack of historical records of any supernova event
> at that time, but to me there seems to be a flaw
> in the logic of assuming that just because one is
> not recorded does not mean that one did not occur.
> As discussed previously the event may have been
> recorded in the source material for the
> Anglo-saxon Chronicles and Roger of Wendower (even
> though they seem to disagree by a year or two).
> For example, Roger gives the description of
>
Quote:“In the year of our Lord 776, fiery and
> fearful signs were seen in the heavens after
> sunset ; and serpents appeared in Sussex, as if
> they had sprung out of the ground, to the great
> astonishment of all”
>
> But according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 774
>
Quote:“This year the Northumbrians banished
> their king, Alred, from York at Easter-tide; and
> chose Ethelred, the son of Mull, for their lord,
> who reigned four winters.
> This year also appeared in the heavens a red
> crucifix, after sunset; the Mercians and the men
> of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful serpents
> were seen in the land of the South-Saxons.”


Thanks for these quotes, Jonny. (There were some more related quotes and links in this previous post).



> Similarly, Roger has this to say about the year
> 794
>
Quote:“In the year of our Lord 794, Humbert,
> archbishop of Lich field, died, and was succeeded
> by Higbert. The same year dreadful prodigies
> terrified the miserable English nation ; for
> fearful thunderbolts and horrible fiery dragons
> were seen passing through the air, foreboding a
> mighty famine and dreadful slaughter of the
> people. For the Danes with the Norwegians
> committed sad havoc among the people of
> Northumberland and of Lindesfarne, destroying the
> churches of Christ with their inmates. The island
> of Lindisfarne, which has an extent of eight miles
> or more, contains a noble monastery, in which was
> buried the illustrious father, bishop Cuthbert,
> with other prelates, his most holy successors. Now
> the Lindis is a rivulet, flowing into the sea, and
> is about two feet in width at low tides, but at
> high tides it cannot be seen.”
>
> While the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has this to say in
> 793
>
Quote:“In this year dire portents appeared over
> Northumbria and sorely frightened the people.
> They consisted of immense whirlwinds and flashes
> of lightning, and fiery dragons were seen flying
> in the air. A great famine immediately followed
> those signs , and a little after that in the same
> year, 8 June, the reavers of the heathen men
> miserably destroyed God’s church in Lindisfarne,
> with plunder and slaughter. And Sicga died on 22
> February.”

>
> From the recent Gamma ray burst paper, from my
> understanding of the paper, the researchers were
> looking for a mechanism that could generate gamma
> rays without a visible supernova. The issue seems
> to be the belief that no supernova was
> observed/recorded at the time, hence the different
> hypothesised scenarios. Indeed, in the outset of
> the recent paper, the authors construct their
> argument that a supernova capable of producing
> enough gamma rays to explain the 14C excess should
> have been within 260 parsecs (about 850 light
> years), and so should have been visible. In
> order for it to remain undetected there would have
> to be extreme optical absorption, which would be
> impossible for the distance, ergo it was not an
> ordinary supernova, and must have been something
> else. But what if it was observed and recorded,
> for example in the sources of Roger of Wendower or
> the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or has not been
> recognised as being recorded, then a normal
> supernova should still be on the table.
>
> So while I think that we should not abandon
> looking to our Sun as the source, so too I dont
> think we should through out the idea that it may
> have been a bog standard supernova.

OK ... this was a bit technical for me! On a slightly related note, I found mediaeval Japanese references to the Supernova of AD 1054 ... If there was anything for AD 793 or 794, though, I didn't come across it.

I think that, if the theory that celestial events were recorded in ancient chronicles, one might want to find a whole pattern of correlation of scientific evidence of such events with records in ancient chronicles ... And I'm not really sure if there's enough of a pattern at the moment.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me