I find the image at the bottom says it perfectly. This press release includes not one but two new images. The fast facts page very clearly states what colors were assigned to each filter for each image even without the picture to help explain.Chris Peterson wrote:Maybe not. When you follow the Fast Facts link for this image it suggests (strongly) otherwise. But I think that the little image at the bottom describes what they're actually trying to say. Badly. Very, very badly.geckzilla wrote:The infrared data is not included in this image. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm actually putting together a visible + IR image out of the freshly released FITS data right now!
APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 07)
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- hughhyatt
- Asternaut
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:37 pm
- Location: Upper Holland, PA, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Interesting. The text under the image says it's a "visible light snapshot". But the Fast Facts describe what sound like assignment of false colors, and the images at the bottom also seem to imply the same. Also,...Chris Peterson wrote:Maybe not. When you follow the Fast Facts link for this image it suggests (strongly) otherwise. But I think that the little image at the bottom describes what they're actually trying to say. Badly. Very, very badly.geckzilla wrote:The infrared data is not included in this image. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm actually putting together a visible + IR image out of the freshly released FITS data right now!
... visible light is 400–700 nm, no?Chris Peterson wrote:We are also seeing a near IR continuum from 900-1700 nm.
FYI, I'm a total but long-time (50+ year) amateur.
O Star-eyed Science! hast thou wandered there, To waft us home the message of despair? — Thomas Campbell
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Today's APOD features only visible light and that visible light is from three narrowband passes. One blue (cyan if you are picky) at 502nm and two red at 657nm and 673nm. Today's APOD did NOT include the infrared image which consisted of two wideband near-infrared filters peaking at 1100nm and 1600nm. If you are still confused you can see the raw data at this page:
http://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/heritag ... alist.html
http://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/heritag ... alist.html
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- Ron-Astro Pharmacist
- Resistored Fizzacist
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
- AKA: Fred
- Location: Idaho USA
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
It's almost as if someone dripped three drops of a red-brown dye and now it's settling through dispersion.
Wonder if there is any analogy? I would doubt any gravitational influence from something unseen in the image but there does seem a sense of increasing entropy. It's always seemed, though, that new stars forming represents decreasing randomness. Very confusing to me but an amazing glimpse of our universe-in-action.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Make Mars not Wars
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
But, why is the sky blue?
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18460
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Yeah, once you figure it out you can tell what they're trying to say. But it's extremely unclear. One of the worst written explanations I've encountered.geckzilla wrote:I find the image at the bottom says it perfectly. This press release includes not one but two new images. The fast facts page very clearly states what colors were assigned to each filter for each image even without the picture to help explain.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
The link under the words "spectacular details" (http://heritage.stsci.edu/2015/01/supplemental.html) points out some regions where movement can be seen.blastoff wrote:Is it possible to see any movement over the 25 year interval (a mere instant indeed) at this scale? of the gasses themselves or perspective shift as we float by? my guess is not much. We'll simply have to take a photo every twenty five years for the next several million, and have a pretty amazing time-lapse!
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
It's the same as they've always used and I've found it very easy to understand since I began having enough interest in these things to understand them at all. I find it strange that you find it so unclear.Chris Peterson wrote:Yeah, once you figure it out you can tell what they're trying to say. But it's extremely unclear. One of the worst written explanations I've encountered.geckzilla wrote:I find the image at the bottom says it perfectly. This press release includes not one but two new images. The fast facts page very clearly states what colors were assigned to each filter for each image even without the picture to help explain.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Chris Peterson wrote:
Maybe not. When you follow the Fast Facts link for this image it suggests (strongly) otherwise. But I think that the little image at the bottom describes what they're actually trying to say. Badly. Very, very badly.
Fast Facts at Hubble Heritage make it clear:
About this Image
This image is a composite of separate exposures acquired by the WFC3 instrument on the Hubble Space Telescope. Several filters were used to sample and narrow wavelength ranges. The color results from assigning different hues (colors) to each monochromatic (grayscale) image associated with an individual filter. In this case, the assigned colors are:
Code: Select all
WFC3/UVIS Image of M16 F502N ([O III]) blue F657N (Hα + [N II]) green F673N ([S II]) red
There are also some interesting comparisons in Supplemental at Hubble Heritage: a mouse over comparison of the UVIS and IR images, as well as comparisons to the 1995 image.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
If you look at a wider view of the area (e.g.: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140607.html) it becomes more obvious that we are mostly seeing the silhouette of dust against a background of glowing gas. The infared-only image also reveals this (http://heritage.stsci.edu/2015/01/supplemental.html)Chris Peterson wrote:I'd say that the dominant thing we are seeing is dust structures, not glowing gases. The dust structures are directly illuminated by stars, and are also seen against a background of ionized gas. The dust casts shadows. I think it's perfectly proper to say that we're seeing light and shadows from nearby stars, just that most of it is stimulated, not reflected or scattered.geckzilla wrote:[What you are actually seeing is a complex set of glowing gases. Instead of thinking of what you see as light and shadows coming from the nearby stars, think of the structures themselves glowing gently. There are shadows in a sense because the energy of the stars is what is causing the gas to be energized and emit light so places where the gas does not receive enough energy are not glowing or are glowing more dimly.
Narrow-band filters, color-mapping and other manipulations allow one to create beautiful works of art, but I constantly have to explain to people that there is no vantage point out in space where you could actually see a scene like this with your eye. With a 20" scope I can just make out a dark V-shape in the middle of a large nebulosity - similar to this image (http://messier.seds.org/Jpg/m16.jpg) but with less detail and not red!
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18460
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Indeed, this is true for all nebulas. None can appear to our eyes as anything other than a vague grayish fog with bit of subtle structure visible (think of the Milky Way). Doesn't matter where we observe from, or what kind of purely optical instruments we use. These things are all extremely dim.Visual_Astronomer wrote:Narrow-band filters, color-mapping and other manipulations allow one to create beautiful works of art, but I constantly have to explain to people that there is no vantage point out in space where you could actually see a scene like this with your eye.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
But wouldn't we see the color emerge through a sufficiently long-exposure photograph? And if so, couldn't we theoretically (though impractically!) also see the color if only we could look through a sufficiently enormous telescope that was able to collect and concentrate enough photons at once?Chris Peterson wrote:Indeed, this is true for all nebulas. None can appear to our eyes as anything other than a vague grayish fog with bit of subtle structure visible (think of the Milky Way). Doesn't matter where we observe from, or what kind of purely optical instruments we use. These things are all extremely dim.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18460
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Certainly, images capture structure and color. That's how today's image was made. That's what APOD is all about!Rules For wrote:But wouldn't we see the color emerge through a sufficiently long-exposure photograph? And if so, couldn't we theoretically (though impractically!) also see the color if only we could look through a sufficiently enormous telescope that was able to collect and concentrate enough photons at once?
But our eyes? No. It doesn't matter how big a telescope you use, what you see will never be brighter than your naked eye sees the same thing. Only larger.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- JohnD
- Tea Time, Guv! Cheerio!
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Lancaster, England
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
The UK national newspaper, the Guardian, today published as its centrefold, this APOD image together with an infra red image, said to reveal the young stars.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/pictur ... ion-hubble
John
http://www.theguardian.com/world/pictur ... ion-hubble
John
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
But when I look through a telescope at the Moon, it seems both larger and brighter...?Chris Peterson wrote:But our eyes? No. It doesn't matter how big a telescope you use, what you see will never be brighter than your naked eye sees the same thing. Only larger.
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Larger but not brighter. Your eyes are the primary optics; the scope is secondary; which explains why a larger aperture scope yields brighter images; but ultimately you're actually losing light as a result of using secondary optics.Rules For wrote:But when I look through a telescope at the Moon, it seems both larger and brighter...?
What about the relative movements of the cloud and its newborn stars? I was under the impression that the nebula continues moving with the same momentum and speed; but leaves the newborn stars behind? Presumably because they have more mass in a smaller space, is that right? And will the newly formed star cluster emerge from the top of this image? So relative to the background, is this cloud going up or down? EDIT: I presume from its appearance that there is a shock front at the top; and a compression in the gas thus forming stars; which implies that the stars will actually emerge from the bottom of the cloud ...? Or relative to the background; the cloud will move in an upward direction; leaving behind a star cluster in essentially the same place where it is now?
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
If a star has gone super nova and its shock-wave disrupted the pillers - is it likely the disruption would cause much of the gas and dust to fall together and form an area of many new stars?WickedLad wrote:Very interesting! Thank you, Geck!geckzilla wrote:What you are actually seeing is a complex set of glowing gases. Instead of thinking of what you see as light and shadows coming from the nearby stars, think of the structures themselves glowing gently. There are shadows in a sense because the energy of the stars is what is causing the gas to be energized and emit light so places where the gas does not receive enough energy are not glowing or are glowing more dimly.WickedLad wrote:I've often wondered as I look at APOD photos whether the apparent light and shadows are what my eyes tell me they are. (And the "Pillars of Creation" seem the most extreme example.) Are there really bright light sources where they appear to be, in this case, behind and above the subject structure? Do they really cast what look like shadows in the photo? Are there no bright light sources in front of or below the structure to cast light where there those shadows appear?
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
It's already done: here.I'm actually putting together a visible + IR image
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
No, it wasn't. Not as a single, combined, three-color image. Here is the one I created earlier today.another poster wrote:It's already done: here.I'm actually putting together a visible + IR image
![Image](https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8586/16223013872_cbe26d9d49.jpg)
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- JohnD
- Tea Time, Guv! Cheerio!
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:11 pm
- Location: Lancaster, England
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
You mean like the one from NASA, published in todays Guardian and linked to in my posts above?
John
John
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
That one was just infrared. It was also only two colors.JohnD wrote:You mean like the one from NASA, published in todays Guardian and linked to in my posts above?
John
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18460
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
It seems brighter because you are taking in more photons which are covering more of the back of your eye. But the surface brightness (that is, the brightness per unit area on your retina) can never be higher with a telescope than it is without one. Good thing, or you could go blind looking at the Moon telescopically!Rules For wrote:But when I look through a telescope at the Moon, it seems both larger and brighter...?
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- rstevenson
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
So you're starting a conversation by saying that anyone who disagrees with the idea that "the pillars are ... living creatures" has a mind "dwarfed through lack of imagination"? It's going to be a very short conversation.Freemind wrote:Who's to say the pillars are not living creatures except people whose minds are dwarfed through lack of imagination, which, Einstein said, was more important than knowledge.
Rob
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Freemind, it depends on what you mean by "living" and "creature". Stars are creations that are said to be born, have a life and die. And I suppose one could describe these pillars as pre-natal stars, although for some reason they are commonly described as stellar nurseries. The word "creature" can be used to describe anything existing, so I'd accept a description of the pillars as "living creatures", though I'd think it was a poor description, easily mistaken for other possible connotations.rstevenson wrote:So you're starting a conversation by saying that anyone who disagrees with the idea that "the pillars are ... living creatures" has a mind "dwarfed through lack of imagination"? It's going to be a very short conversation.Freemind wrote:Who's to say the pillars are not living creatures except people whose minds are dwarfed through lack of imagination, which, Einstein said, was more important than knowledge.
Rob
Re: APOD: Hubble 25th Anniversary: Pillars of... (2015 Jan 0
Can anyone explain why the sky in the background is blue instead of the usual black?