PDA

View Full Version : Oh, WOW! Sharpest pictures of Andromeda ever. But . . .


Loose rivets
6th Jan 2015, 15:30
You'll need fast broadband, super graphics and a LOT of patience.


Sharpest ever view of the Andromeda Galaxy (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/)

handsfree
6th Jan 2015, 16:42
I now feel totally insignificant.
What a fabulous photograph.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Jan 2015, 17:05
It looks very dense, but we know galaxys are almost entirely 'nothing'. All the matter, including dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc, make up a teeny bit of 1% of the volume of the galaxy. Presumably that's quite a 'long exposure' picture so the light from the individual stars makes them look very much larger than they really are?

Andromeda and our Milky Way will coalesce eventually as they are moving towards each other. When that happens the distance between stars means the likelihood of collisions is tiny, even though they will be gravitationally drawn towards each other.

Flybiker7000
6th Jan 2015, 19:56
The fastest known rocket would take 77.000 years to travel the 4 lightyear distance to the Suns nearest neighbour.
If the sun is imaginary shrunk to the size of a white bloodcell - The Milkyway galaxy will fill the North American continent :-o
The space between the Milkyway and the Andromeda galaxy are 23 times as big as the size of the Milkyway.
HUGE distances out there :-o

Lonewolf_50
6th Jan 2015, 20:54
The fastest known rocket would take 77.000 years to travel the 4 light year distance to the Suns nearest neighbour. If the sun is imaginary
shrunk to the size of a white blood cell - The Milky Way galaxy will fill
the North American continent. The space between the Milky Way and the
Andromeda galaxy are 23 times as big as the size of the Milky Way. HUGE
distances out there :eek:
Hmm, looks like we'll need to get the rocket engine with the Hemi.

Capot
7th Jan 2015, 00:40
On the theme of space and distances, I think I got this off pprune.....but in case anyone missed it...

26 amazing pictures (http://www.wimp.com/universepictures/)

RJM
7th Jan 2015, 04:34
If the sun is imaginary shrunk to the size of a white bloodcell - The Milkyway galaxy will fill the North American continent

That does make the Milky Way seem quite big.

I once read a similar comparison suggesting that the sun from wherever it was would appear 'like a microbe's frisbee seen through the wrong end of a telescope beyond Pluto'.

Now that's distance for you!

BabyBear
7th Jan 2015, 12:04
All the tiny blue, yellow and red dots between the bright bits - that's sensor noise I guess?

Look like Smarties to me.:)

Astonishing photograph!

It's mind boggling, thanks for posting.

Loose rivets
7th Jan 2015, 12:28
I'd imagine the sensor is about as good as it gets. There are of course some stars that seem blue-white but I don't know if they're colour-coded UV or really are that hot.


I think I've said, but I went to a Neil DeGrass Tyson lecture at my local Uni and he showed a huge picture of another professor's letter. It was a letter of complaint. Tyson acted out the crowd coming to his lectures about space and he walked happily towards the imaginary door. Then he acted out the people leaving and they were all slumped and sad looking. The complaint had been that he was depressing all the other professor's classes by making them feel hopelessly insignificant on our speck of dust.

There wasn't a lot of science in the lecture but it was a hoot. While talking about numbers he asked just what the minimum value coin he would pick up off the sidewalk. "You know me, I've been on television a lot and written quite a few books. I've got a few quid. [Sic] A penny? Nah. Ten cents? No. A quarter? Yes, I'd pick up a quarter. Now, based on relative worth, what would be the minimum value Bill Gates would stoop for? The answer was $34,000.

The thing that really stuck in my mind was a 6' high grey wheel on the white screen. Zooming in it showed branches of species and then more branches and then more and more . . . Most of them were extinct.

Mmm, have to copy this across to the theology thread.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
7th Jan 2015, 12:30
All the tiny blue, yellow and red dots between the bright bits - that's sensor noise I guess?

Are you referring to the stars? The big white splodges are presumably nearby stars in our own galaxy between the Hubble and Andromeda, in the foreground, and therefore out of focus

Bushfiva
7th Jan 2015, 12:32
Basil, on a site which lets you zoom in further, they're stars.


You may find this flythrough interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU


I've got this original image, it's a 4.2 GB file.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
7th Jan 2015, 14:11
The human eye can't see much colour in deep space objects (anything outside the solar system). Cameras can. The reason is the eye 'refreshes' the image it sees many times a second so never gets to 'store' enough of the weak light from distant objects to determine colour.

A camera can sit there for as long an exposure as you like, gathering light, enough for it to determine colour.

That's why no matter how fancy your telescope, deep sky objects are white or grey, never the lovely colours you see of them in photographs.

BabyBear
7th Jan 2015, 14:24
Although, I do recollect on deck, mid-Atlantic on a clear night, the sky looked grey with stars.

The first time I saw the disc of the Milky Way I was in awe. I described it as looking like someone had whitewashed the Sky with one stroke of a rather large brush. Looking at a dark sky and allowing the eyes time to adjust never, ever disappoints.

teeteringhead
7th Jan 2015, 14:40
The first time I saw the disc of the Milky Way I was in awe. I described it as looking like someone had whitewashed the Sky with one stroke of a rather large brush. Description I always recall is that of sitting inside a fried egg (the MW Galaxy). So you see more if you look along the surface of the frying pan rather than perpendicular to it.

And milk of course, not whitewash - hence "galaxy"!

Hope that makes sense........ :bored:

rh200
8th Jan 2015, 03:15
Nice pics, but frankly I find the Hubble deeps field more awe inspiring. Andromeda just another galaxy amongst hundreds of millions.

On distance, yes comparisons and scaling can be mind boggling. Try expanding the gap that a hard disk head is off a platter to a reasonable size, and compare the rest of the dimensions.

On the space in the galaxy, hardly surprising since the key your typing on(matter itself) is comprised up of 99% plus empty space when you look at the volume occupied by the proton and electron.

Flybiker7000
8th Jan 2015, 23:51
If we succesfully hemi-up a rocket to travel with the speed of the light the human body demands that it will take 35 years of only 3G acceleration to get to the topspeed - Not to mention the brake down in the other end.
That makes 70years + to reach the nearest star :-o

tdracer
9th Jan 2015, 01:40
Nah, we just need to get Scottie to gin up that warp drive thingy :E

mikedreamer787
9th Jan 2015, 11:07
And the inertial dampers. Don't leave 'em home
or old man Newton will get you before you even
get to quarter impulse.

MagnusP
9th Jan 2015, 12:20
Andromeda is pretty impressive even as a naked-eye object or through binoculars.

The Podlonians also get to see the Magellanic clouds. Happy days.

mikedreamer787
10th Jan 2015, 03:11
Magnus long time ago in the 80s
I caught the Supernova in one of
the Magellanic clouds, and saw it
too in a scope in Taswegia where
the seeing was excellent.