Starship Asterisk*

re: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080630.html

In the picture at about 10 o'clock from the central star and near the edge of the blue color, there is a feature that looks like the head of a snail which includes the two eye stalks.

In my view, these two "stalks" appear to be trails of two "somethings" which have been expelled from the "snail head" itself.

Questions:

1. Is this a reasonable interpretation of these two "stalks"?
2. If not, what are they?
3. If 1. is a reasonable interpretation, what kind of objects are these likely to be?
4. If 1. is a reasonable interpretation, what mechanism could account for imparting such velocity to these objects, which is obviously significantly greater than the velocity of the material in the "snail head" structure?

Here's a closer view of the 'snail's head'.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071226.html

The shorter-looking stalk is a gas pillar, apparently with a new star forming at its tip, formed as the energetic light from the massive stars illuminating the nebula erode the gas clouds. The longer, thinner one is some sort of jet, my guess would be a Herbig-Haro object.

Qev wrote: (. . . 'snail's head' explanation . . .)

Thanks for the reference and explanation.

Another example of how looks can be deceiving in many of these APOD pix.

To me; the whole nebula looks like a giant eagle flying away with it's prey.
Orin

orin stepanek wrote:To me; the whole nebula looks like a giant eagle flying away with it's prey. Orin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6NVIJ-yRoI

OK, I know this isn't nearly as prolific as other posts, but doesn't this image of the center of the Trifid Nebula look strangely like Doc Brown's Flux Capacitor in "Back To The Future"?

"Great Scott, Marty! We've changed the course of the time-space continuum!"

I couldn't find the image
Oh well
(Nice signature by the way)

Today's APOD image (6/30/08), the Trifid Nebula, and the image here of a recreated 1.21 Jigawatt Flux Capacitor:

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploa ... acitor.jpg

bluegreenheart wrote:doesn't this image of ... Trifid Nebula look ... like ... Flux Capacitor ... ?

Yes, but it reminds me more of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor where the Trifid Nebula was displayed every time we switched universes. But what of Lazarus?

Also, according to http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... ebula.html ...

"A panel displaying the Trifid Nebula is also fixed to the wall of the starship Voyager's Astrometrics Lab and makes a brief appearance in numerous episodes of Star Trek Voyager, including 'Dark Frontier', 'Dragon's Teeth', 'Night', and 'Blink of an Eye'."

And when I first saw BTTF, I thought the flux capacitor design was stolen from the Trifid Nebula.

bluegreenheart wrote:Today's APOD image (6/30/08), the Trifid Nebula, and the image here of a recreated 1.21 Jigawatt Flux Capacitor:

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploa ... acitor.jpg

Watts a Jigawatt?
----------------------------------------------
A coranto? my very walk should be a jig;
- Twelfth Night: I, iii

Wooing, wedding, and repenting, is as a scotch jig,
a measure, and a cinque pace:
the first suit is hot and hasty, like a Scotch jig,
- Much Ado About Nothing: II, i

What should the wars do with these jigging fools?
- Julius Caesar: IV, iii

you jig, you amble, and you lisp, and nick-name God's creatures,
- Hamlet: III, i

Say on: he's for a jig or a tale of bawdry,
- Hamlet: II, ii

O god, your only jig-maker.
- Hamlet: III, ii

No, my complete master: but to jig off a tune
- Love's Labour's Lost: III, i

And profound solomon to tune a jig,
- Love's Labour's Lost: IV, iii

neufer wrote:Watts a Jigawatt?

1/746 of a Jigahorsepower, if memory serves.

You say tomato, Doc Brown says what he wants.

Now on to serious business. Here in the US, 10^9 (1E9) (a one followed by nine zeroes) is a billion. Over in the UK, as I understand it, 10^12 (1E12) is a billion while 10^9 (1E9) is a milliard. No wonder scientists keep things clear with exponential notation and prefixes like "Giga" for 10^9 and "nano" for 1/10^9.

Even though I'm American, I think the UK system of going up by powers of 10^6 from million to billion to trillion so "bi" is 2x6 zeroes and "tri" is 3x6 zeroes, etc. makes more sense, but I use what I was given.

So here's my question:

In the US, a nano-something is a billionth. In the UK, is there really such a word as "milliardth"?

neufer wrote:Watts a Jigawatt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigawatt#.22Jigowatt.22

apodman wrote:

neufer wrote:Watts a Jigawatt?

1/746 of a Jigahorsepower, if memory serves.

Well, that dates you, apodman! (The gig is up [or, maybe, down].)

GIG, n. [Cf. Icel. geiga to take a wrong direction, rove at random, and E. jig.] A light carriage with one pair of wheels, drawn by one horse.

apodman wrote:You say tomato, Doc Brown says what he wants.

Like Jiant, Jipsy, Jiraffe, Jibraltar, Jin & tonic, Jin rummy, Jigolo...?

In any event, it was spelled "jigowatt" in the script
--------------------------------------------------
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/trivia

# In the film's script the word "gigawatt" is spelled "jigowatt".

# The device in Doc Brown's lab that Marty plugs his guitar into is labeled "CRM-114", which was the name of the message decoder on the B-52 in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), and the serial number of the Jupiter explorer in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), both directed by Stanley Kubrick. Also in A Clockwork Orange (1971) a 'Serum 114' is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRM114
--------------------------------------------------

apodman wrote:Now on to serious business. Here in the US, 10^9 (1E9) (a one followed by nine zeroes) is a billion. Over in the UK, as I understand it, 10^12 (1E12) is a billion while 10^9 (1E9) is a milliard. No wonder scientists keep things clear with exponential notation and prefixes like "Giga" for 10^9 and "nano" for 1/10^9.

Even though I'm American, I think the UK system of going up by powers of 10^6 from million to billion to trillion so "bi" is 2x6 zeroes and "tri" is 3x6 zeroes, etc. makes more sense, but I use what I was given.

So here's my question:

In the US, a nano-something is a billionth. In the UK, is there really such a word as "milliardth"?

Why not? The Who's in Whoville play on a billiardth table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix

neufer wrote:

apodman wrote:You say tomato, Doc Brown says what he wants.

Like Jiant, Jipsy, Jiraffe, Jibraltar, Jin & tonic, Jin rummy, Jigolo...?

In any event, it was spelled "jigowatt" in the script

Tourist: I saw your advert in the bolour supplement

Bounder: The what?

Tourist: The bolour supplement

Bounder: The colour supplement?

Tourist: Yes I'm sorry I can't say the letter 'B'

Bounder: C?

Tourist: Yes that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I was a spoolboy. I was attacked by a bat

Bounder: A cat?

Tourist: No a bat

Bounder: Can you say the letter 'K'

Tourist: Oh yes, Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford

Bounder: Why don't you say the letter 'K' instead of the letter 'C'

Tourist: what you mean.....spell bolour with a K

Bounder: Yes

Tourist: Kolour. Oh that's very good, I never thought of that

"The Trifid, also known as M20, is only about 300,000 years old, making it among the youngest emission nebulae known."

How are the astronomers able to determine the age of the nebula and any other objects?

Gary

starnut wrote:How are the astronomers able to determine the age of the nebula and any other objects?

I would try to get the age of the emission nebula from the age of the young hot bright star within. I would try to make a good guess at the age of the Trifid Nebula first by looking at the apparent luminosity, apparent mass, and spectral type (color) of its "single massive star". I would try to guess the actual luminosity. With this information in hand, I would refer to the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram and likely find this star to be type O - very hot, bright, massive, and blue.

Age is not actually plotted on the H-R, but you can determine it by how far down the main sequence a star has gone. You have one axis (luminosity), the other axis (spectral type or surface temperature), and the plotted occurrences of all the stars we can see. The bulk of the plot of stars (the main sequence) turns out to be a curvy highway laid out with high mass at one end and low mass at the other. A newborn star of a given mass falls at a point along the main sequence that matches a certain luminosity on one axis and a certain spectral type on the other axis. A star of greater than zero age has a different luminosity and spectral type for its mass, and you can guess its age by seeing how far it has moved down the main sequence from its newborn values. There are plenty of other stars for comparison.

But the H-R main sequence is less a highway and more a scatter chart, so maybe it's not a precise enough tool to measure ages as young as we're talking about here.

There's a lot of current theory on star formation, and since they launched the Hubble we have great pictures of "star nurseries" like the Eagle and Orion nebulae to compare with the theories. Detailed attributes of these star-forming regions can be compared with other nebulae to eventually build an age scale.

But I'm spouting without due consideration again, so someone please enlighten us all.

Hello apodman,

In your "script" about the person who couldn't pronouce the letter "C" your character cited some words beginning with the letter "k". The first two examples were "khaki" and "king". It is amazing because there is a young woman who plays a hammering style on acoustic guitar that is mind blowing. Her name is Kaki King. She's in her mid to late 20's and is a really good writer/performer.

astrolabe wrote:In your "script" ...

It isn't really my script. It's part of a Monty Python routine from the 1970s. I possibly should have cited the source, but I assumed the source to be one of many sites that have published without necessarily owning the material or having permission. I did a google search for "spell bolour with a k" and took a likely link. Anyway, it's a short clip shared for educational purposes, so I don't think a foul has been committed here.

Hello apodman,

Thanks, cool. BTW I wonder how many "fouls" we do get in life before we get benched. Getting thrown out of the game is another matter altogether.

astrolabe wrote:I wonder how many "fouls" we do get in life before we get benched. Getting thrown out of the game is another matter altogether.

A few years ago the All-Star game ended in a tie and made the fans unhappy. For the next week, fans at games around both leagues threw foul balls that had been batted into the stands back onto the field of play in protest. A reporter who obviously didn't know baseball reported several times that spectators were throwing "faux bowels" onto the field. I pictured plastic sausage casings.

Now, from this point forward I vow to talk (mostly) about APOD and astronomy.

Hello apodman,

Point noted.