Starship Asterisk*

NGC 604: Wall Divides East and West Sides of Cosmic Metropolis

A new study unveils NGC 604, the largest region of star formation in the nearby galaxy M33, in its first deep, high-resolution view in X-rays. This composite image from Chandra X-ray Observatory data (colored blue), combined with optical light data from the Hubble Space Telescope (red and green), shows a divided neighborhood where some 200 hot, young, massive stars reside.

See also APOD: 1996 Aug 16 - NGC 604: Giant Stellar Nursery in M33

High Energy Astrophysics Picture Of the Week

HEAPOW: Evacuation Route (2009 Feb 02)

HEAPOW wrote:The beautiful image above of the star cluster NGC 604 in the nearby galaxy M33 is a combination of a high-resolution image by the Hubble Space Telescope plus an X-ray image by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. This image is one of the best ever obtained showing the interaction of stars and their environment. The Hubble image shows how the massive stars have formed together, and how their combined winds (and the explosive deaths of the most massive members?) have carved out huge bubbles, which (as the Chandra image, in blue, shows) are filled with hot shocked gas. The Chandra X-ray image suggests that most of the hot gas was produced by a combination of stellar winds on the right side of the cluster. However, on the left side of the cluster, the bright X-ray emission does not appear to be associated with stars, so that supernovae probably played a more important role in producing the hot X-ray emitting gas. The HST and Chandra data implies that a massive wall of gas shields the relatively quiet region on the left from the active star formation on the right.

------------------------------------------------
M33: Triangulum Galaxy

Explanation: The small, northern constellation Triangulum harbors this magnificent face-on spiral galaxy, M33. Its popular names include the Pinwheel Galaxy or just the Triangulum Galaxy. M33 is over 50,000 light-years in diameter, third largest in the Local Group of galaxies after the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), and our own Milky Way. About 3 million light-years from the Milky Way, M33 is itself thought to be a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy and astronomers in these two galaxies would likely have spectacular views of each other's grand spiral star systems. As for the view from planet Earth, this sharp, detailed image nicely shows off M33's blue star clusters and pinkish star forming regions that trace the galaxy's loosely wound spiral arms. In fact, the cavernous NGC 604 is the brightest star forming region, seen here at about the 1 o'clock position from the galaxy center. Like M31, M33's population of well-measured variable stars have helped make this nearby spiral a cosmic yardstick for establishing the distance scale of the Universe.
------------------------------------------------
Don't be an Asterisk*


------------------------------------------------
NGC 604: Giant Stellar Nursery

Explanation: Stars are sometimes born in the midst of chaos. About 3 million years ago in the nearby galaxy M33, a large cloud of gas spawned dense internal knots which gravitationally collapsed to form stars. NGC 604 was so large, however, it could form enough stars to make a globular cluster. Many young stars from this cloud are visible in the above image from the Hubble Space Telescope, along with what is left of the initial gas cloud. Some stars were so massive they have already evolved and exploded in a supernova. The brightest stars that are left emit light so energetic that they create one of the largest cloud of ionized hydrogen gas known, comparable to the Tarantula Nebula in our Milky Way's close neighbor, the Large Magellanic Cloud.
------------------------------------------------
NGC 604: Giant Stellar Nursery
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021102.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980411.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970305.html

Explanation: Scattered within this cavernous nebula, cataloged as NGC 604, are over 200 newly formed hot, massive, stars. At 1,500 light-years across, this expansive cloud of interstellar gas and dust is effectively a giant stellar nursery located some three million light-years distant in the spiral galaxy, M33. The newborn stars irradiate the gas with energetic ultraviolet light stripping electrons from atoms and producing a characteristic nebular glow. The details of the nebula's structure hold clues to the mysteries of star formation and galaxy evolution.
------------------------------------------------

bystander wrote:APOD: 2009 February 05 - NGC 604: X-rays from a Giant Stellar Nursery

Here occurs the shocking and frightening history, of the one Prince Dracula:

Of the apod photo .. not of Drac .. simply, wonderfully, Wow!

My Dad's family were neighbours to Drac, Transylvania borders on Bukovina, Dad's folks were from Chernovitz, got away from Drac and the Austrian war draft by moving to a nice little river valley in Manitoba.

Hello neufer,

neufer wrote:

bystander wrote:APOD: 2009 February 05 - NGC 604: X-rays from a Giant Stellar Nursery

Here occurs the shocking and frightening history, of the one Prince Dracula:

Nice looking guy.

aristarchusinexile wrote:My Dad's family were neighbours to Drac

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirac large numbers hypothesis

<<The Dirac large numbers hypothesis (LNH) refers to an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch. According to Dirac's hypothesis, the apparent equivalence of these ratios might not be a mere coincidence but instead could imply a cosmology with these unusual features:

* The strength of gravity, as represented by the gravitational constant, is inversely proportional to the age of the universe: G = A/t
* The mass of the universe is proportional to the square of the universe's age: M = B* t^2.

Neither of these two features has gained acceptance in mainstream physics and, though some proponents of non-standard cosmologies refer to Dirac's cosmology as a foundational basis for their own ideas and studies, some physicists harshly dismiss the large numbers in LNH as mere coincidences more suited to numerology than physics. A coincidence, however, may be defined optimally as 'an event that provides support for an alternative to a currently favoured causal theory, but not necessarily enough support to accept that alternative in light of its low prior probability.' Research into LNH, or the large number 'coincidences' that underpin it, appears to have gained new impetus from failures in standard cosmology to account for anomalies such as the recent, very surprising discovery that the universe might be expanding at an accelerated rate.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirac cosmology and the acceleration of the contemporary universe
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v1 ... 057a0.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u634j75280359611/

We see all these wonderful images and the explanations of them but very little is said about where all this mass came from. The big bang theory, which appears to me to be just another creation theory rejiggered for scientists, does not explain anything, but it gets us off the hook for a real explanation. Something happened that resulted in all that mass concentrated in a relatively small volume of space as in Galaxies, Did a black hole implode? This possibility, of course, only steps us back another cycle and does not explain the origin of the mass either. Perhaps the mass has always been there and has no origin or explanation. Are we just projecting our birth and death on the universe as we formerly did with the solar system. Any comments?

Jack White
Albany OR

My apologies for the typo, don,t know how that happened!

JW

lakeside wrote:We see all these wonderful images and the explanations of them but very little is said about where all this mass came from. The big bang theory, which appears to me to be just another creation theory rejiggered for scientists, does not explain anything, but it gets us off the hook for a real explanation. Something happened that resulted in all that mass concentrated in a relatively small volume of space as in Galaxies, Did a black hole implode? This possibility, of course, only steps us back another cycle and does not explain the origin of the mass either. Perhaps the mass has always been there and has no origin or explanation. Are we just projecting our birth and death on the universe as we formerly did with the solar system. Any comments?

The BB theory does a very good job of explaining our observations of the Universe, and has proved quite predictive as well. Scientifically, the origin of the BB is currently beyond our ability to analyze, and it's very possible it will always remain so. It's a part of human nature to ask "why?", but that doesn't mean everything has an answer- at least, not a scientific one. That doesn't, however, make the BB theory any less strong.

NGC 604: a Rosse by any other name:

Drawing of M33, the Triangulum spiral galaxy, created by R.J. Mitchell
on the ground of observations by William Parsons, the Third Earl of Rosse.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080913.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061123.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060914.html

neufer wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:My Dad's family were neighbours to Drac

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirac large numbers hypothesis

<<The Dirac large numbers hypothesis (LNH) refers to an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch. According to Dirac's hypothesis, the apparent equivalence of these ratios might not be a mere coincidence but instead could imply a cosmology with these unusual features:

* The strength of gravity, as represented by the gravitational constant, is inversely proportional to the age of the universe: G = A/t
* The mass of the universe is proportional to the square of the universe's age: M = B* t^2.

Neither of these two features has gained acceptance in mainstream physics and, though some proponents of non-standard cosmologies refer to Dirac's cosmology as a foundational basis for their own ideas and studies, some physicists harshly dismiss the large numbers in LNH as mere coincidences more suited to numerology than physics. A coincidence, however, may be defined optimally as 'an event that provides support for an alternative to a currently favoured causal theory, but not necessarily enough support to accept that alternative in light of its low prior probability.' Research into LNH, or the large number 'coincidences' that underpin it, appears to have gained new impetus from failures in standard cosmology to account for anomalies such as the recent, very surprising discovery that the universe might be expanding at an accelerated rate.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirac cosmology and the acceleration of the contemporary universe
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v1 ... 057a0.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u634j75280359611/

Neufer, you're generally so careful with your posts. However, the photo is of ' D R A C ' not ' D I R A C ' (I hope you will share my smile, as I shared yours).

Yes .. coincidences of numbers are not coincidences.

neufer wrote:NGC 604: a Rosse by any other name:

Drawing of M33, the Triangulum spiral galaxy, created by R.J. Mitchell
on the ground of observations by William Parsons, the Third Earl of Rosse.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080913.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061123.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060914.html

Spinning in an area of low density DM IMO.

lakeside wrote:We see all these wonderful images and the explanations of them but very little is said about where all this mass came from. The big bang theory, which appears to me to be just another creation theory rejiggered for scientists, does not explain anything, but it gets us off the hook for a real explanation. Something happened that resulted in all that mass concentrated in a relatively small volume of space as in Galaxies, Did a black hole implode? This possibility, of course, only steps us back another cycle and does not explain the origin of the mass either. Perhaps the mass has always been there and has no origin or explanation. Are we just projecting our birth and death on the universe as we formerly did with the solar system. Any comments?

Jack White
Albany OR

Pascual Jordan - "A star could be made out of nothing at all, because at the point of '0' volume its negative gravitational energy would precisely cancel out is positive mass energy'. Jordan, a contemporary of Einstein, but not widely published in our era because, supposedly, of his membership in the Nazi party. However, we have all heard of Wernher Von Braun.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Neufer, you're generally so careful with your posts. However, the photo is of ' D R A C ' not ' D I R A C ' (I hope you will share my smile, as I shared yours).

Actually, the picture is of Gary Oldman in his role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), which really has very little to do with Vlad Dracula, aka Vlad the Impaler. It has even less to do with the APOD and I find myself wondering, What's the point?

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Neufer, you're generally so careful with your posts. However, the photo is of ' D R A C ' not ' D I R A C ' (I hope you will share my smile, as I shared yours).

Actually, the picture is of Gary Oldman in his role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), which really has very little to do with Vlad Dracula, aka Vlad the Impaler. It has even less to do with the APOD and I find myself wondering, What's the point?

Bystander, was the pun intended?

aristarchusinexile wrote:Bystander, was the pun intended?

I suppose not, considering I don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, I see the pun (point, impaler), but it was unintentional. I just don't understand the point Art was making when he posted the picture. I'm sure there is one, I just don't get it.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Neufer, you're generally so careful with your posts. However, the photo is of ' D R A C ' not ' D I R A C '
(I hope you will share my smile, as I shared yours).

Actually, the picture is of Gary Oldman in his role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), which really has very little to do with Vlad Dracula, aka Vlad the Impaler. It has even less to do with the APOD and I find myself wondering, What's the point?

NGC 604 is a very disturbing image IMO that sort of reminds me of the face of a vampire bat (and/or of Gary Oldman in his role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)). In order that the thread not to drift to far away from astronomy, however, I expanded ' DRAC ' into ' DIRAC ' whose modifications on general relativity might be consistent with observed DARC Energy expansion.

[b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler#Dark_Prince:_The_True_Story_of_Dracula [/b] wrote: The 2000 movie _Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula_ filmed on location in Hungary and starring Rudolf Martin, attempts to portray Vlad the Impaler as a generally sympathetic, tragic figure.>>

neufer wrote:NGC 604 is a very disturbing image IMO that sort of reminds me of the face of a vampire bat (and/or of Gary Oldman in his role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)). In order that the thread not to drift to far away from astronomy, however, I expanded ' DRAC ' into ' DIRAC ' whose modifications on general relativity might be consistent with observed DARC Energy expansion.

Ok, I can see it, after you point it out. In the annotated picture, the part in the hair is approximately where the upper part of the backward J is, and the head is leaning slightly to the right (our left).

Vlad is much more associated with the film than he was in the original novel. But there is an excellent novel that ties Vlad the Impaler with the vampire legends. It's called The Historian.

wiki wrote:The Historian is a 2005 novel by Elizabeth Kostova about a quest, reaching through the past five centuries, for the historical Vlad the Impaler. ...

While nominally a modern re-telling of the Dracula story, The Historian delves deeply into the nature of history and its relevance to today's world, as well as serving as a cautionary tale on the historical antagonism between Western Civilization and Islam.

We should be so excited and pleased that a course in Astronomy is available to all.

I would like to see some real data when it can be understood by scientists other than astronomers. For example, much is done with X-ray images, a feat that I would have thought to be impossible a couple of decades ago, but there are no x-ray spectra shown by which, I assume, the compositions of the emitting gasses can be determined. Some years ago an X-ray image of Venus was shown but no mention that the atmosphere of Venus could, presumably, be analyzed by X-Ray fluorescence methods. Of course, your audience may begin to disappear without the pretty pictures but combination images may be possible so to teach a little science in the process.

Jack White
Albany OR

bystander wrote:

neufer wrote:NGC 604 is a very disturbing image IMO that sort of reminds me of the face of a vampire bat (and/or of Gary Oldman in his role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)). In order that the thread not to drift to far away from astronomy, however, I expanded ' DRAC ' into ' DIRAC ' whose modifications on general relativity might be consistent with observed DARC Energy expansion.

Ok, I can see it, after you point it out. In the annotated picture, the part in the hair is approximately where the upper part of the backward J is, and the head is leaning slightly to the right (our left).

Bram Stoker » Dracula » Chapter 19 wrote:<<Once I got a fright, for, seeing Lord Godalming suddenly turn and look out of the vaulted door into the dark passage beyond, I looked too, and for an instant my heart stood still. Somewhere, looking out from the shadow, I seemed to see the high lights of the Count's evil face, the ridge of the nose, the red eyes, the red lips, the awful pallor. It was only for a moment, for, as Lord Godalming said, "I thought I saw a face, but it was only the shadows," and resumed his inquiry, I turned my lamp in the direction, and stepped into the passage. There was no sign of anyone, and as there were no corners, no doors, no aperture of any kind, but only the solid walls of the passage, there could be no hiding place even for him. I took it that fear had helped imagination, and said nothing. A few minutes later I saw Morris step suddenly back from a corner, which he was examining. We all followed his movements with our eyes, for undoubtedly some nervousness was growing on us, and we saw a whole mass of phosphorescence, which twinkled like STARs. We all instinctively drew back. The whole place was becoming alive with RATS.>>

Hey neuf!

neufer wrote:however, I expanded ' DRAC ' into ' DIRAC ' whose modifications on general relativity might be consistent with observed DARC Energy expansion.

Honestly, DARC Energy?? I sometimes wonder if you're able to stop yourself but then again......clever if I do say so myself. So if you've got it- flaunt it.

astrolabe wrote:

neufer wrote:however, I expanded ' DRAC ' into ' DIRAC ' whose modifications on general relativity might be consistent with observed DARC Energy expansion.

Honestly, DARC Energy??

astrolabe wrote:I sometimes wonder if you're able to stop yourself but then again......
clever if I do say so myself. So if you've got it- flaunt it.

Thanks, astro; and NO I can't control it (as folks at HLAS would tell you.)

HLAS also had it's own version of aristarchusinexile at HLAS;
he liked to talk about being a neighbor of P.A.M. Dirac's down in Florida.

Hello neufer,

Thanks for the link. Boy did they ever hit the nail on the head! BTW, great photo- gotta lose the tie though.