geckzilla wrote:Just a star which is noticeably brighter after four years have passed. There aren't a whole lot of images in the HLA which are exact repeats of filters and exposure times but this is one of them. I cleaned up a couple of cosmic rays so they wouldn't be distracting.
Unless you have more details on this star, it's probably safer to say that it happened to be brighter in the second image. It may well have gone through multiple cycles over the four years, so it's just chance it happened to be brighter. It could as easily have been dimmer.
In other words, odds are we are seeing a cyclical pattern here (which is impossible to quantify with just two images) and not a long term trend.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
geckzilla wrote:Just a star which is noticeably brighter after four years have passed. There aren't a whole lot of images in the HLA which are exact repeats of filters and exposure times but this is one of them. I cleaned up a couple of cosmic rays so they wouldn't be distracting.
The gas and dust making up the nebula is moving, of course. Perhaps the star's light output has remained constant while a thicker area of the nebula happened to be passing it by in 1995 and had moved on by 1999, so the star appeared brighter to us in the later photo. (This is assuming that the star in question is either behind or within the nebula. If it's in front, than my hypothesis is what a scientist would call wrong.)
geckzilla wrote:Just a star which is noticeably brighter after four years have passed. There aren't a whole lot of images in the HLA which are exact repeats of filters and exposure times but this is one of them. I cleaned up a couple of cosmic rays so they wouldn't be distracting.
Unless you have more details on this star, it's probably safer to say that it happened to be brighter in the second image. It may well have gone through multiple cycles over the four years, so it's just chance it happened to be brighter. It could as easily have been dimmer.
In other words, odds are we are seeing a cyclical pattern here (which is impossible to quantify with just two images) and not a long term trend.
The BLINK image that Geckzilla provided is really interesting. You can see the expansion of the denser part of the nebula toward the star at the 5:30 position. Also of note is the star at the 3:30 position. it is not only overtaken by the denser portion of the nebula but also appears to have visually moved toward the central star. Did it really move that distance in just 4 years?
Yes, things are really moving that much. The sky looks static unless you are looking at things really close. Suddenly there seems to be all sorts of things floating all over the place. For this I think the telescope might also be slightly off from one picture to another but some other stuff is definitely moving. It's kind of annoying but in a strange and somewhat delightful way to be trying to compose an image and think to myself "Ah damn, that star moved really far. ...Wait, that's actually awesome."
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
BMAONE23 wrote:The BLINK image that Geckzilla provided is really interesting. You can see the expansion of the denser part of the nebula toward the star at the 5:30 position. Also of note is the star at the 3:30 position. it is not only overtaken by the denser portion of the nebula but also appears to have visually moved toward the central star. Did it really move that distance in just 4 years?
Sure, it could move that far. How far do you think that actually is? I registered the images better, so you can better see what's moving. Not only is the nebula moving outward, but that particular star appears to also be moving slightly toward the nebula.
file1.jpg (35.91 KiB) Viewed 64277 times
file2a.jpg (9.86 KiB) Viewed 64277 times
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
Weird nebula rapidly expanding around variable star V347 Nor. This paper states the rate of expansion is ~90km/s. This recent paper supposedly indicates that the object is not a planetary nebula, but I can't get past the pay wall. The two pictures are 3 years apart.
geckzilla wrote:
Weird nebula rapidly expanding around variable star V347 Nor. This paper states the rate of expansion is ~90km/s. This recent paper supposedly indicates that the object is not a planetary nebula, but I can't get past the pay wall. The two pictures are 3 years apart.
geckzilla wrote:Weird nebula rapidly expanding around variable star V347 Nor. This paper states the rate of expansion is ~90km/s. This recent paper supposedly indicates that the object is not a planetary nebula, but I can't get past the pay wall.
geckzilla wrote:Weird nebula rapidly expanding around variable star V347 Nor. This paper states the rate of expansion is ~90km/s. This recent paper supposedly indicates that the object is not a planetary nebula, but I can't get past the pay wall. The two pictures are 3 years apart.
Wonderful,
Another Beautiful expanding nebula with yet another moving object?
There is a spot next to the star at 9:00 (left of the nebula) that moves right, to the edge of the nebula in the later image
I thought the nebula was more interesting. I didn't check the little dot. It could be an anomaly on Hubble's end of things. Or it might be some...thing.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Two things in this picture:
1 What the heck is going on with that larger spiral galaxy in the lower left? It just looks odd to me and I can't exactly place why.
2 Maybe that is an Einstein cross in the upper right.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
geckzilla wrote:
Catherine wheel is such an awful name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheel wrote:
<<The Catherine wheel was a torture device used for capital punishment in the Middle Ages and early modern times for public execution by bludgeoning to death. The wheel was typically a large wooden wagon wheel with many radial spokes. In some cases the condemned were lashed to the wheel and their limbs were beaten with a club or iron cudgel, with the gaps in the wheel allowing the limbs to give way. During the execution of Franz Seuboldt in Nuremberg on 22 September 1589, a wheel was used as a cudgel: the executioner used wooden blocks to raise Seuboldt's limbs, then broke them by slamming a wagon wheel down onto the limb.
Medieval hagiographies told that St Catherine of Alexandria was sentenced to be executed on one of these devices for refusing to renounce her Christian belief, which thereafter became known as the Catherine wheel. The wheel miraculously broke when she touched it; she was then beheaded. As an attribute it is usually shown broken in a small version beside her.
In English, the quotation "Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?" from Alexander Pope's "Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot" is occasionally seen, referring to putting great effort into achieving something minor or unimportant.>>
Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel?
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
Yet let me flap this bug with gilded wings,
This painted child of dirt that stinks and stings;
Whose buzz the witty and the fair annoys,
Yet wit ne'er tastes, and beauty ne'r enjoys,
So well-bred spaniels civilly delight
In mumbling of the game they dare not bite.
Eternal smiles his emptiness betray,
As shallow streams run dimpling all the way.
Whether in florid impotence he speaks,
And, as the prompter breathes, the puppet squeaks...
