Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:40 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:42 pm
So... it was clear to you both from the Hubble image alone that this was never a Bok globule (and, presumably, that Herschel PACS far-IR 70 & 160mum maps, APEX LABOCA & SABOCA submillimeter continuum maps, and Magellan PANIC near-IR images were a waste of time)

It was clear to me. And it certainly sounds like it was clear to her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah wrote:
<<Chutzpah is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. Originated 1890–95 from Yiddish חוצפּה‎ (ḥuṣpâ), from Mishnaic Hebrew חוֹצְפָּה‎ (ḥôṣǝpâ), from חָצַף‎ (ḥāṣap, “to be insolent”). Ultimately from Aramaic חֲצִיפָא‎ (ḥăṣîpāʾ), חֲצַף‎ (ḥaṣap, “to be barefaced, insolent”). In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has overstepped the boundaries of accepted behavior. In traditional usage, the word expresses a strong sense of disapproval, condemnation and outrage.

Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish defines chutzpah as "gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible 'guts', presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to". In this sense, chutzpah expresses both strong disapproval and condemnation. In the same work, Rosten also defines the term as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan."

Chutzpah amounts to a total denial of personal responsibility, which renders others speechless and incredulous ... one cannot quite believe that another person totally lacks common human traits like remorse, regret, guilt, sympathy and insight. The implication is at least some degree of psychopathy in the subject, as well as the awestruck amazement of the observer at the display.>>

Tom Glenn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:49 pm FYI the discussion link for today's APOD (January 28) still directs to this page, and the date on the APOD landing page above the image is incorrect (still says January 27). This glitch also causes the APOD for the 27th to be skipped if you click "<" to see the previous APOD.

Tekija wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:59 pm This is the link to discuss today’s image:
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=42178

neufer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:42 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:00 pm

dlmartin7@cogeco.ca wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:48 pm
With Ann and Peterson sparing, one can only conclude that this discussion is one for the ages.

But we're not. We're in agreement.

• Indeed.... for you wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm
I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement.

So... it was clear to you both from the Hubble image alone that this was never a Bok globule (and, presumably, that Herschel PACS far-IR 70 & 160mum maps, APEX LABOCA & SABOCA submillimeter continuum maps, and Magellan PANIC near-IR images were a waste of time) :?:

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:00 pm

dlmartin7@cogeco.ca wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:48 pm
With Ann and Peterson sparing, one can only conclude that this discussion is one for the ages.

But we're not. We're in agreement.

• Indeed.... for you wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm
I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2202 wrote:
Hier ist wahrhaftig ein Loch im Himmel - The NGC 1999 dark globule is not a globule
T. Stanke, A. M. Stutz, J. J. Tobin, B. Ali, S. T. Megeath, O. Krause, H. Linz, L. Allen, E. Bergin, N. Calvet, J. Di Francesco, W. J. Fischer, E. Furlan, L. Hartmann, T. Henning, P. Manoj, S. Maret, J. Muzerolle, P. C. Myers, D. Neufeld, M. Osorio, K. Pontoppidan, C. A. Poteet, D. M. Watson, T. Wilson
[Submitted on 12 May 2010]

The NGC 1999 reflection nebula features a dark patch with a size of ~10,000 AU, which has been interpreted as a small, dense foreground globule and possible site of imminent star formation. We present Herschel PACS far-infrared 70 and 160mum maps, which reveal a flux deficit at the location of the globule. We estimate the globule mass needed to produce such an absorption feature to be a few tenths to a few M_sun. Inspired by this Herschel observation, we obtained APEX LABOCA and SABOCA submillimeter continuum maps, and Magellan PANIC near-infrared images of the region. We do not detect a submillimer source at the location of the Herschel flux decrement; furthermore our observations place an upper limit on the mass of the globule of ~2.4x10^-2 M_sun. Indeed, the submillimeter maps appear to show a flux depression as well. Furthermore, the near-infrared images detect faint background stars that are less affected by extinction inside the dark patch than in its surroundings. We suggest that the dark patch is in fact a hole or cavity in the material producing the NGC 1999 reflection nebula, excavated by protostellar jets from the V 380 Ori multiple system.

dlmartin7@cogeco.ca wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:48 pm With Ann and Peterson sparing, one can only conclude that this discussion is one for the ages.

dlmartin7@cogeco.ca wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:48 pm
With Ann and Peterson sparing, one can only conclude that this discussion is one for the ages.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=spare wrote:
spare (v.) Old English sparian "to refrain from harming, be indulgent to, allow to go free; use sparingly," from the source of Old English spær "sparing, frugal," from Proto-Germanic *sparaz (source also of Old Saxon sparon, Old Frisian sparia, Old Norse spara, Dutch sparen, Old High German sparon, German sparen "to spare"). Meaning "to dispense from one's own stock, give or yield up," is recorded from early 13c. Related: Spared; sparing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spar (v.) late 14c., "go quickly, rush, dart, spring;" c. 1400, "to strike or thrust," perhaps from French esparer "to kick" (Modern French éparer), from Italian sparare "to fling," from Latin ex- (see ex-) + parare "make ready, prepare," hence "ward off, parry." Used in 17c. in reference to preliminary actions in a cock fight; figurative sense of "to dispute, bandy with words" is from 1690s. Extension to humans, in a literal sense, with meaning "to engage in or practice boxing" is attested from 1755. Related: Sparred; sparring.

bystander wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:52 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:55 pm Find something wrong in a Wikipedia article? Fix it! That's how the system works. It depends upon community input and correction.

The error wasn't in the wikipedia article NGC 1999, but in the text accompanying the image File:Ngc1999.jpg which was taken from HubbleSite. It's a little harder to correct STScI and NASA.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:55 pm Find something wrong in a Wikipedia article? Fix it! That's how the system works. It depends upon community input and correction.

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 am

Grumpy woman.png

Grumpy woman speaks (in a loud voice:

Chris, you should check Ann's quote before asserting that Wikipedia doesn't say what she claims it is saying! Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_1999, click on the top image, and note that the caption that appears as the new page opens is exactly the one she quoted!

Ann, you should realize that not everyone knows what "NGC" means (New General Catalogue), or that it lists only bright objects. Not everyone understands that a dark object can't be an NGC object, so it was wrong of you to say that "NGC 1999 is a cavity", when it is really the name of a bright reflection nebula (with a cavity in its center)!

Ann

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:39 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm
I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement. In any case, however, Wikipedia has it right. As Wikipedia nearly always does.

Yes, Chris, that is obviously what I meant, namely, that the dark object in the center of NGC 1999 is a cavity, not that NGC 1999 itself is a cavity rather than a dusty nebula. After all, what NGC designation could possibly refer to a cavity only, or any old pitch-black object only??? But my point was that the astronomers who first took a look at the Hubble image of NGC 1999 couldn't quite believe that the dark object in the center of this dusty nebula was a cavity.

And I want to thank Tekija for noticing that I was quoting the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons, which indeed still claims that the dark "T" in NGC 1999 is a dark Bok globule. Thank you, Tekija!

Ann

Hmm. One person's "obvious"...

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm

Tekija wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:44 pm
Ann was misled by the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons that, as it should, cites the original HHT caption? The text on the Wikipedia, on the other hand, was corrected to refer to a hole on 16 May 2010, according to the page edit history. And Chris perhaps did not notice that Ann had cited the old image caption, not current text? Hence the apparent disagreement?

I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement. In any case, however, Wikipedia has it right. As Wikipedia nearly always does.

Yes, Chris, that is obviously what I meant, namely, that the dark object in the center of NGC 1999 is a cavity, not that NGC 1999 itself is a cavity rather than a dusty nebula.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:39 pm
Hmm. One person's "obvious"...

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:22 pm
After all, what NGC designation could possibly refer to a cavity only, or any old pitch-black object only??? But my point was that the astronomers who first took a look at the Hubble image of NGC 1999 couldn't quite believe that the dark object in the center of this dusty nebula was a cavity.

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:22 pm
And I want to thank Tekija for noticing that I was quoting the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons, which indeed still claims that the dark "T" in NGC 1999 is a dark Bok globule.

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2000/10/952-Image.html wrote:

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

<<The WFPC2 image of NGC 1999 shows a remarkable jet-black cloud near its center, resembling a letter T tilted on its side, located just to the right and lower right of the bright star. This dark cloud is an example of a "Bok globule," named after the late University of Arizona astronomer Bart Bok. The globule is a cold cloud of gas, molecules, and cosmic dust, which is so dense it blocks all of the light behind it. In the Hubble image, the globule is seen silhouetted against the reflection nebula illuminated by V380 Orionis. Astronomers believe that new stars may be forming inside Bok globules, through the contraction of the dust and molecular gas under their own gravity.>>

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm

Tekija wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:44 pm

Ann was misled by the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons that, as it should, cites the original HHT caption? The text on the Wikipedia, on the other hand, was corrected to refer to a hole on 16 May 2010, according to the page edit history. And Chris perhaps did not notice that Ann had cited the old image caption, not current text? Hence the apparent disagreement?

I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement. In any case, however, Wikipedia has it right. As Wikipedia nearly always does.

Yes, Chris, that is obviously what I meant, namely, that the dark object in the center of NGC 1999 is a cavity, not that NGC 1999 itself is a cavity rather than a dusty nebula. After all, what NGC designation could possibly refer to a cavity only, or any old pitch-black object only??? But my point was that the astronomers who first took a look at the Hubble image of NGC 1999 couldn't quite believe that the dark object in the center of this dusty nebula was a cavity.

And I want to thank Tekija for noticing that I was quoting the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons, which indeed still claims that the dark "T" in NGC 1999 is a dark Bok globule. Thank you, Tekija! :D

Ann

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm

Tekija wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:44 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:21 pm

Hmm: "NGC 1999 is a dust-filled bright nebula with a vast hole of empty space represented by a black patch of sky, as can be seen in the photograph. It is a reflection nebula, and shines from the light of the variable star V380 Orionis." I don't see how many ways that can be read. I don't see how it is in any way inaccurate.

NGC 1999 is most certainly not the cavity. We don't name cavities this way. This object is a structure that contains a cavity. Every authoritative reference defines it as a reflection nebula.

Ann was misled by the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons that, as it should, cites the original HHT caption? The text on the Wikipedia, on the other hand, was corrected to refer to a hole on 16 May 2010, according to the page edit history. And Chris perhaps did not notice that Ann had cited the old image caption, not current text? Hence the apparent disagreement?

I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement. In any case, however, Wikipedia has it right. As Wikipedia nearly always does.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:48 pm

Tekija wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:44 pm
Ann was misled by the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons that, as it should, cites the original HHT caption? The text on the Wikipedia, on the other hand, was corrected to refer to a hole on 16 May 2010, according to the page edit history. And Chris perhaps did not notice that Ann had cited the old image caption, not current text? Hence the apparent disagreement?

I'm mainly responding to her claim "It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity." I guess that is subject to interpretation. If she means it as "the dark region in NGC 1999 is a cavity, not a dust cloud", then there is no disagreement.

Tekija wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:49 pm And Ann did not by my reading intentionally confuse the hole with the nebula but thought the hole was still referred to as Bok globule.

Tekija wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:44 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:21 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:06 pm

You and I are reading that Wikipedia entry differently, Chris. :wink:

Hmm: "NGC 1999 is a dust-filled bright nebula with a vast hole of empty space represented by a black patch of sky, as can be seen in the photograph. It is a reflection nebula, and shines from the light of the variable star V380 Orionis." I don't see how many ways that can be read. I don't see how it is in any way inaccurate.

NGC 1999 is most certainly not the cavity. We don't name cavities this way. This object is a structure that contains a cavity. Every authoritative reference defines it as a reflection nebula.

Ann was misled by the caption of the Wikipedia image in Wikimedia Commons that, as it should, cites the original HHT caption? The text on the Wikipedia, on the other hand, was corrected to refer to a hole on 16 May 2010, according to the page edit history. And Chris perhaps did not notice that Ann had cited the old image caption, not current text? Hence the apparent disagreement?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:21 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:06 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:15 pm
The Wikipedia entry sounds perfectly correct. NGC 1999 is not a cavity. It is a dusty reflection nebula with a cavity in its center.

You and I are reading that Wikipedia entry differently, Chris.

Hmm: "NGC 1999 is a dust-filled bright nebula with a vast hole of empty space represented by a black patch of sky, as can be seen in the photograph. It is a reflection nebula, and shines from the light of the variable star V380 Orionis." I don't see how many ways that can be read. I don't see how it is in any way inaccurate.

NGC 1999 is most certainly not the cavity. We don't name cavities this way. This object is a structure that contains a cavity. Every authoritative reference defines it as a reflection nebula.

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:06 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:15 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:32 am
It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity. The incredible void in it makes it a unique object, at least among objects so far catalogued by astronomers. Imagine the jet that punched through the rather thick nebula here and left this T-shaped scar! This "black hole", or "hole-y T", completely baffled astronomers when they first saw the Hubble image of NGC 1999 back in the year 2000, and they thought that the T was a dust cloud. Indeed, a Wikipedia page is still telling us it is a dust cloud!!! No no no, Wikipedia!!

The Wikipedia entry sounds perfectly correct. NGC 1999 is not a cavity. It is a dusty reflection nebula with a cavity in its center.

You and I are reading that Wikipedia entry differently, Chris. :wink:

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:15 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:32 am
It is so clear from the Hubble image that NGC 1999 is a cavity. The incredible void in it makes it a unique object, at least among objects so far catalogued by astronomers. Imagine the jet that punched through the rather thick nebula here and left this T-shaped scar! This "black hole", or "hole-y T", completely baffled astronomers when they first saw the Hubble image of NGC 1999 back in the year 2000, and they thought that the T was a dust cloud. Indeed, a Wikipedia page is still telling us it is a dust cloud!!! No no no, Wikipedia!!

The Wikipedia entry sounds perfectly correct. NGC 1999 is not a cavity. It is a dusty reflection nebula with a cavity in its center.