PDA

View Full Version : Another astromonical marvel seen by Hubble


Mr. Anderson
Dec 19, 2002, 04:31 PM
Ok, this one for me is up there with the big galaxies pic they released a couple of years ago. I wonder if you lived on a planet in one of the galaxies what would you see in the night sky? It might be pretty damn spectacular! :D

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/12/19/hubble.seyfert/index.html


D

Mr. Anderson
Dec 19, 2002, 04:50 PM
Found a better image at space.com - got to love some of their background images - its worth a look if you haven't checked it out before.

D

Over Achiever
Dec 19, 2002, 09:18 PM
Cool picture Hubble took there. What, those are Seyfert type galaxies? Cool!

I especially like the sprial seen face on...it looks cool.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 19, 2002, 10:44 PM
What's even more amazing is the number of galaxies in the background. Have you ever seen the Hubble image with a whole screen full of galaxies? Pretty damn amazing.

D

Kethoticus
Dec 20, 2002, 03:00 AM
At least that how it looks to me. He's having fun with His creation. It's almost funny to look at those images, as I see a kind of Divine playfulness. Anyway, just a subjective feeling here.

I wonder if you lived on a planet in one of the galaxies what would you see in the night sky? It might be pretty damn spectacular!

If you've ever seen the Milky Way, then you've probably seen what those galaxy collisions would look like. We'd never see those things that bright, but rather as dim grey shapes mimicking clouds, but the kind that never changed shape--only rotational position--during the course of the night.

For those who don't know, the Milky Way is our galactic disk edge-on. Here in the northern hemisphere, you can see the galactic hub. We Terrans can have this vantage point because we're close to the outer edge of our own galaxy.

What I think would be cool would be to see multiple suns in the sky. Over time, one would disappear behind the other as they orbited each other and as we orbited them. Also what might be cool would be to be close to a star cluster. Youch. All those stars no further from one another than approximately 1 light year. Whatta night--even daytime--sky.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 20, 2002, 09:07 AM
I think that the multitude of stars would outshine what we see of the Milkyway. I've been to Alaska in the mountains in winter and never seen anything to compare, and that was mind blowing. This galatic dance would be even more impressive - you'd see more light because the stars would be so densly arrayed in many parts of the sky, although the overall view wouldn't be nebulous.

D

MacBandit
Dec 20, 2002, 10:45 AM
Actually if you want to see a ton of galaxies in one image there are some very good ones from the Hubble. Here is one of my favorite. Look at how many galaxies there are in the back ground. Basically every dot you see is a galaxy. I have read that this photo was taken when they turned the Hubble to a dark empty part of the sky. They discovered the Tadpole galaxy and then realized that it was only empty to land based telescopes.

http://www.sky-watch.com/gallery/hubble.html

Mr. Anderson
Dec 20, 2002, 04:53 PM
That is a good one, hadn't seen that one before. For those sort of shots they have to leave the Hubble aiming at the same spot for weeks there is so little light. Sort of reminds me of looking in a microscope at pond water.

D

King Cobra
Dec 20, 2002, 06:07 PM
That background of galazies is truly incredible. If there were a lot more galaxies with variety, and that cluster in front wasn't there, I would have that 1MB desktop on my computer in a few minutes.

For some reason, the Milky Way doesn't impress me as much as looking at other galaxies. I think the orange-colored galaxies look pretty cool.

Unfortunately, there is way too much light polution where I live, so I cannot see the galaxy clearly. :(

superkatalog
Dec 20, 2002, 07:31 PM
it's beautiful! yesterday we had such a amazing full-moon night. no clouds and extremly bright. wonderful...

Kethoticus
Dec 20, 2002, 09:11 PM
I think that the multitude of stars would outshine what we see of the Milkyway. I've been to Alaska in the mountains in winter and never seen anything to compare, and that was mind blowing. This galatic dance would be even more impressive - you'd see more light because the stars would be so densly arrayed in many parts of the sky, although the overall view wouldn't be nebulous.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Heh heh... just kidding. Seriously though, I do disagree with you, altho there's only one way to find out for sure, and that's impossible. At least currently.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 21, 2002, 12:09 AM
Where have you been to see the Milkyway? Its hard to describe what I saw up in Alaska, but imagine looking at up at the sky and seeing a haze of stars, much brighter than anything else. Even though you didn't see all the stars, if you stared at one spot long enough, many would pop out at you.

D

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2002, 12:41 AM
Anyone here live or been in the Australian outback. From my understanding the Magellanic clouds are very bright on a clear night.

Also there is a limit to how bright the sky is going to be with stars no matter where in the galaxy you are. Now if Earth were in the core of our galaxy imagine what the sky would look like. Instead of there being only one star within 8 light years (other than our own) there would be hundreds.

Kethoticus
Dec 21, 2002, 12:44 AM
Where have you been to see the Milkyway? Its hard to describe what I saw up in Alaska, but imagine looking at up at the sky and seeing a haze of stars, much brighter than anything else. Even though you didn't see all the stars, if you stared at one spot long enough, many would pop out at you.

You saw the Milky Way. Since that's the edge of our galaxy, something we normally see very bright in long-exposure photos, you get an idea of why I say that we wouldn't see the galaxy collision much more brightly. Did you know that there are colorful nebulae in our sky that are actually quite large, but that we barely see, if at all, because of the fact that these objects are normally very dim to the naked eye?

MacBandit
Dec 21, 2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus


You saw the Milky Way. Since that's the edge of our galaxy, something we normally see very bright in long-exposure photos, you get an idea of why I say that we wouldn't see the galaxy collision much more brightly. Did you know that there are colorful nebulae in our sky that are actually quite large, but that we barely see, if at all, because of the fact that these objects are normally very dim to the naked eye?

The time of year also makes a difference on how bright the Milky Way is. I believe in winter we are facing the center of our galaxy at night which is slightly brighter. To really view the sky at night you have to go out on a clear, moonless, winter night. Durring the winter the horizon glow is much dimmer. This is due to the fact that the Day/Night transition line is much farther away. Durring the summer the Day/Night transistion line is extends to all sides of the pole in your hemisphere. Thus 24 Hours of light past the artic or antartic circle.

I love camping in the winter on snow it is so peaceful. I have been out in the winter on a clear, moonless night where the Milky Way was so bright in the sky and the reflection in the snow that you could read by it.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 21, 2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus


You saw the Milky Way. Since that's the edge of our galaxy, something we normally see very bright in long-exposure photos, you get an idea of why I say that we wouldn't see the galaxy collision much more brightly. Did you know that there are colorful nebulae in our sky that are actually quite large, but that we barely see, if at all, because of the fact that these objects are normally very dim to the naked eye?

Ok, I don't think you understood me then. I know I saw the Milky Way - I'm an amature astromoner of sorts - most of the space/astromony current events my threads. The Orion Nebula, just below the belt of Orion is a classic example of what you're talking about. You can't see it with the naked eye, but its there and actually takes up quite a large bit of sky.

The Andromeda Galaxy is also very large, with an angular footprint several times larger than the full moon, yet its not something you see - for one reason its so far away.

In the case of these colliding galaxies, all within a relatively small part of space, there would be a lot more stars visible to the naked eye. If you look up at the Milkyway you see a band of light that marches across the sky (why do you think its called that anyway?) In Alaska it was some much more pronounced to the point that even if it didn't glow, the ambient light of the space surrounding any star in the Milkyway was effectively brighter than one not in the Milkyway. And the differentiation between the Milkyway and to either side was significant.

In the Seyfert Sextet you'd have a greater area in the sky that was similar to the Milkyway and where two or more of the galaxies were seen edge on it would even be more spectacular. And I wonder what the galactic core would look like if you saw it from the top instead of edge on with dust clouds getting in the way?

That's what I was getting at in my earlier statement. In all likely hood you'd have a very impressive night sky.

:D

D