APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

[Nitpicker]

I am generally hopeless at spotting shapes in clouds (in the sky or deep space).

I had never been able to discern an eagle in this nebula until now. I do now see (vaguely) the smaller eagle in the pillars.

But this talk of which is the "real" eagle is not dissimilar to arguments over the "correct" way to join the dots to form asterisms within the official constellation boundaries. It is surprisingly common to see significantly different interpretations of asterisms, even just within western sky folklore.

Yes, but many of the bright named nebulas have been seen unambiguously for many decades. It's not so much a question of right or real, just recognizing where these names came from, and realizing that visually, the number of ways they're seen is much smaller. What people see may differ (e.g. a swan or an omega in M17), but how those things are seen doesn't typically change. Until we consider deep images, that is.

But is there room for interpretations to evolve over time, similar to the way that the meaning of words and use of grammar evolves over time in a language? If more people start to see a different version of an eagle in this nebula, it is probably because they are now more commonly looking at it in a different way.

[geckzilla]

Looking at it again I think I still drew Chris's interpretation of it wrong because I thought the slightly disconnected blob was supposed to be the left wing.

Whatever Nitpicker says, this is still fun.

[Nitpicker]

What Photoshop command are you using on the blue channel to outline the eagle(s) so vividly? Why don't all astro-image-makers do that?

[geckzilla]

I only got the cheap version. You should see the 3d make-an-eagle button.

[Beyond]

And here i was thinking you were good at drawing free-hand. Oh well.

[alter-ego]

Looking at it again I think I still drew Chris's interpretation of it wrong because I thought the slightly disconnected blob was supposed to be the left wing.

Think of that disconnected blob as a fish in the eagle's talons.

[Chris Peterson]

But is there room for interpretations to evolve over time, similar to the way that the meaning of words and use of grammar evolves over time in a language? If more people start to see a different version of an eagle in this nebula, it is probably because they are now more commonly looking at it in a different way.

Of course. As I said, I'm not saying anybody is wrong. I was just pointing out to Geckzilla that the eagle she was seeing in the image wasn't the eagle you see through a telescope, and therefore wasn't the eagle that gave the nebula its name.

Through a telescope it really does resemble an eagle. With deep images, though, there's so much detail that a hundred people might suggest a hundred possible names. We've certainly seen such discussions in this forum. In this case, just the suggestion that there's an eagle has led to several completely different visualizations- something that probably wouldn't happen if we were at the eyepiece.

[Chris Peterson]

Looking at it again I think I still drew Chris's interpretation of it wrong because I thought the slightly disconnected blob was supposed to be the left wing.

Think of that disconnected blob as a fish in the eagle's talons.

Yeah, those are the talons. Visually, you dont see enough detail to make out something in them, though. You just see a blob of body with the head to the right (in the north up orientation of my image), a blob of wing above, and a hint of talons below. More than that starts requiring some serious imagination.

[captainwiggins]

Very lovely picture, however, one shouldn't dismiss that this is a time exposure. In reality if a space ship were approaching the nebula it would pretty much look just like that: a nebula - fuzzy, white, obscure.