APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Fri Dec 26, 2014 7:52 pm

Teach me not to read the explanation first. In the link "above image" - the point had already been made. :(

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Fri Dec 26, 2014 7:45 pm

The one that should have got away!!! :oops:

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Fri Dec 26, 2014 6:18 pm

That is more than a bit unscientific and also completely unnecessary, Ron. Not sure what you wanted to accomplish with that but I hope to purge it from my memory so that precious neurons may be utilized for other memories.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Fri Dec 26, 2014 5:36 pm

"It" is an extremely interesting image. Crazy that the two lobes are asymmetrical from this angle
Tri Exhaust.jpg
Tri Exhaust.jpg (10.2 KiB) Viewed 19285 times
and that the central area is that toroid. Wonder if it is overlapping, separated or if "X" makes the spot that it originated from?
http://gemstonetherapy.info/articles/sacredgeometry.htm (The source is a bit unscientific but I'll use it to demonstrate the concept)

Wonder how big the image is compared to other planetary nebulas?

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:56 pm

It looks like it was capped or muffled by something, somehow, while the other end was more open. The question is what. Did it just happen to line up perfectly with a companion star or is it something to do with the dust toroid? The dust waist seems more pronounced on the smaller end.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:52 pm

geckzilla wrote:Calabash it is, then. I don't think there is a more dramatic example.
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of think I had in mind. It immediately makes me wonder where the asymmetry was in the parent body, or what mechanism converted a tiny asymmetry to a massive one.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:38 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:I was looking over them during these posts and didn't find any. There are some that are more nicely symmetrical and others that are more sloppy looking but there are none that I know of that are totally devoid of symmetry.
Again, you might be overreading my initial comment. I'm not talking about totally asymmetric objects (although that would be fascinating), just objects that have obviously significant asymmetries, like paired lobes of very different sizes, or jets in just one direction. Since all of these objects originated in (presumably) highly symmetric bodies, the source of the asymmetry becomes very interesting.
Calabash it is, then. I don't think there is a more dramatic example.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:19 pm

geckzilla wrote:I was looking over them during these posts and didn't find any. There are some that are more nicely symmetrical and others that are more sloppy looking but there are none that I know of that are totally devoid of symmetry.
Again, you might be overreading my initial comment. I'm not talking about totally asymmetric objects (although that would be fascinating), just objects that have obviously significant asymmetries, like paired lobes of very different sizes, or jets in just one direction. Since all of these objects originated in (presumably) highly symmetric bodies, the source of the asymmetry becomes very interesting.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:08 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:Oh, I misunderstood you to mean that few of them are symmetrical rather than what you apparently meant is that more than you'd expect are asymmetrical. Hey, show me an example of a young, asymmetrical object.
I'm too lazy to track one down just now. Next time I notice one I'll point it out. But I'll bet that you could find one pretty quickly. Seems like you spend a lot of time seeking out interesting objects from image sets.
I was looking over them during these posts and didn't find any. There are some that are more nicely symmetrical and others that are more sloppy looking but there are none that I know of that are totally devoid of symmetry. Frosty Leo is a good example of a sloppy one and there are a couple of IRAS objects closely resembling it but it's still no problem seeing a history of symmetrical polar outbursts in any of them. Maybe the Calabash nebula is the most exceptional one. It's easily symmetrical but one lobe is significantly stunted compared to the other.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:01 pm

geckzilla wrote:Oh, I misunderstood you to mean that few of them are symmetrical rather than what you apparently meant is that more than you'd expect are asymmetrical. Hey, show me an example of a young, asymmetrical object.
I'm too lazy to track one down just now. Next time I notice one I'll point it out. But I'll bet that you could find one pretty quickly. Seems like you spend a lot of time seeking out interesting objects from image sets.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:I mean objects that result from explosive events. I'm certainly not saying that many aren't symmetrical! Just that it is the lack of symmetry in some cases that seems most interesting to me. And I'm talking about young objects- I certainly understand the mechanisms by which symmetry fails over time.
Oh, I misunderstood you to mean that few of them are symmetrical rather than what you apparently meant is that more than you'd expect are asymmetrical. Hey, show me an example of a young, asymmetrical object.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:52 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Symmetry seems like something we should expect. A more interesting question is why so many similar objects are strikingly unsymmetrical.
I disagree somewhat, I think. Let me ask you first what you mean by "many similar objects" before I do so, though. If you mean supernova remnants, I agree, they are pretty disorganized. If planetary nebulas, then those do quite often exhibit some kind of symmetry even if it's fallen apart somewhat over tens of thousands of years.
I mean objects that result from explosive events. I'm certainly not saying that many aren't symmetrical! Just that it is the lack of symmetry in some cases that seems most interesting to me. And I'm talking about young objects- I certainly understand the mechanisms by which symmetry fails over time.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:39 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
cljohnston108 wrote:This was posted on io9 just now...

Why Is This Nebula So Perfectly Symmetrical? | io9

Intrigued, I went looking for more information... except there is NO further information!

NO other pictures (like from Hubble) and NO follow-up articles, etc. NO mention of this thing past mid-April, 2007, except for this APOD posting (of the same image) right here.
Symmetry seems like something we should expect. A more interesting question is why so many similar objects are strikingly unsymmetrical.
I disagree somewhat, I think. Let me ask you first what you mean by "many similar objects" before I do so, though. If you mean supernova remnants, I agree, they are pretty disorganized. If planetary nebulas, then those do quite often exhibit some kind of symmetry even if it's fallen apart somewhat over tens of thousands of years.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:14 pm

cljohnston108 wrote:This was posted on io9 just now...

Why Is This Nebula So Perfectly Symmetrical? | io9

Intrigued, I went looking for more information... except there is NO further information!

NO other pictures (like from Hubble) and NO follow-up articles, etc. NO mention of this thing past mid-April, 2007, except for this APOD posting (of the same image) right here.
Symmetry seems like something we should expect. A more interesting question is why so many similar objects are strikingly unsymmetrical.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by cljohnston108 » Fri Dec 26, 2014 12:07 pm

This was posted on io9 just now...

Why Is This Nebula So Perfectly Symmetrical? | io9

Intrigued, I went looking for more information... except there is NO further information!

NO other pictures (like from Hubble) and NO follow-up articles, etc. NO mention of this thing past mid-April, 2007, except for this APOD posting (of the same image) right here.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Rouzbeh » Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:12 pm

That Square nebula is probably one of the most unique I've ever seen

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by neufer » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:08 am

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=685 wrote:

Of Interest: The surface in this [Mercury MESSENGER] image is located near the center of the large Caloris basin. The linear troughs radiating from the lower left corner are part of Pantheon Fossae, while numerous other fractures can be seen crisscrossing the basin's floor. MESSENGER's orbital images are revealing a complicated set of tectonic features within Caloris basin, many more than previously mapped.
garry wrote:
A square shape is not found in nature.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by neufer » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:48 am

garry wrote:
A square shape is not found in nature.
Image

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Beyond » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:10 pm

GREAT Scott! -- "REALITY"-- Maybe one day it will come out from what It's been hiding behind all this time and say - "Hello".
It would most likely be the best APOD Topic of ALL time. I wonder what the picture would look like??
I'm pretty sure It's number would be more than 42. :mrgreen:

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:34 pm

I don't want to sound presumptuous, Chris, but you're making yourself sound like you don't get out much. ;)

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:48 pm

bystander wrote:Every generation of humans believed it had all the answers it needed, except for a few mysteries they assumed would be solved at any moment. And they all believed their ancestors were simplistic and deluded. What are the odds that you are the first generation of humans who will understand reality? — Scott Adams
I think he is wrong on two counts. First, I don't think every generation of humans believed it had all the answers (although perhaps some believed they had all the answers they thought they needed). Second, I don't think we are a generation of humans who expect to understand reality.

Throughout history, there have been cultures that cultivated scientists and philosophers who tried to answer important questions about nature. The fact that they were asking questions at all means they didn't think they had the answers. Today, we not only ask the questions, but place probabilities on the answers. Nothing is taken as absolutely certain.

Of course, I'm again talking about the educated segment of society, which may or may not be a majority (usually not). The beliefs of the uneducated, and of those duped by mythology, religion, and dogma are a different matter, and may define entire cultures even if a few members know better.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by geckzilla » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:44 pm

Well put, Mr. Adams...

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by bystander » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:11 pm

Every generation of humans believed it had all the answers it needed, except for a few mysteries they assumed would be solved at any moment. And they all believed their ancestors were simplistic and deluded. What are the odds that you are the first generation of humans who will understand reality? — Scott Adams

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by BMAONE23 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:22 pm

-It was never held by educated people that the Earth was flat.
-The six star-like objects that moved in the sky have been recognized as something other than stars for well over 500 years, which is why the designation "planet" came into being.
-It was never held by educated people that your skin would rip off at greater than 35 mph.
-Hiding under your desk in a nuclear attack was a political instruction, not a scientific one.
-Three years ago there were nine planets in the Solar System; all that changed was a definition used by a small number of people. No knowledge changed, nothing was "wrong" with the previous usage.
The key word in your replies is "Educated"
I probably should have phrased the statements as "to the masses" Because the statement attributed to Einstein was made in reference to the uneducated masses.

Re: APOD: MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula (2011 Mar 23)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:47 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Unfortunately, as Humans, we often believe that we are correct in what we think we know
1500 years ago, the Earth was the center of the Universe
700 years ago, the Earth was flat
500 years ago, 6 stars moved in the sky
100 years ago, your skin would rip off if you traveled faster than 35 mph
60 years ago, the best way to survive an atomic attack was to hide under your desk
3 years ago, the solar system contained 9 planets
In my opinion, this sort of construct is a fallacy. It emphasizes what we didn't know, and not what we do know. In fact, the reason we stopped believing many of those things is because we gained knowledge. Particularly in the last few hundred years, with the rise of rational approaches to learning about nature (broadly, the "scientific method"), our knowledge has grown vastly. One of the things this way of thinking has brought us is a way of assessing the quality of our knowledge. I would argue that the things we think we know with great certainty today are unlikely to be wrong. There are other things that we think we understand, and which usefully describe our observations, but which few scientists would argue are certain to be true (for instance, the Big Bang cosmology). That's a very different way of looking at thing than in the past, where belief in ideas was much more absolute.

I think hackerspiff is very much on the mark with his assessment of science, to which I'd only add, our knowledge always increases, and with time we come always closer to the truth (recognizing that the "truth" may never be more than a near-perfect model). We know more about how the Universe works today than we did in the past, and I think that future critics will find it much harder to construct lists of things we now believe but which in the future will seem silly.

A few observations about your specific list are in order:

-It was never held by educated people that the Earth was flat.
-The six star-like objects that moved in the sky have been recognized as something other than stars for well over 500 years, which is why the designation "planet" came into being.
-It was never held by educated people that your skin would rip off at greater than 35 mph.
-Hiding under your desk in a nuclear attack was a political instruction, not a scientific one.
-Three years ago there were nine planets in the Solar System; all that changed was a definition used by a small number of people. No knowledge changed, nothing was "wrong" with the previous usage.

Top