A Nearby Supernova in M51
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:24 am
my attention when looking for the supernova, spotted something else?
![Image](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Agent_X/m51sn_gabany.jpg)
![Image](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/Agent_X/m51sn_gabany.jpg)
APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
So, where (or when) one can take a look at "spatially resolved" picture?In [url=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050719.html]APOD comment[/url] RJN wrote:... nearby supernova are rare and important because they frequently become bright enough to be studied by many telescopes and are near enough for their (former) host star and immediate surroundings to be spatially resolved.
Indigo_Sunrise wrote:jgabany,
How does one weed out "variances in the atmosphere"? I'm curious that there haven't been more 'false alarms' as far as supernovae, etc.
Thad wrote:The discussion points to the location on the right of the pictures, while the first forum post points to the one below galactic center. Which is the true supernova?
kochevnik wrote:I was curious what the time span between "before" and "after"
Hi:mwhidden wrote:I also suspect that due to the size and brightness of the 'pseudo-nova' in the original image, that it is a foreground star (in our galaxy), and not something in M51. This make it much more susceptible to transient atmospheric effects, and rules it out as a supernova candidate.
makc wrote:So, where (or when) one can take a look at "spatially resolved" picture?In [url=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050719.html]APOD comment[/url] RJN wrote:... nearby supernova are rare and important because they frequently become bright enough to be studied by many telescopes and are near enough for their (former) host star and immediate surroundings to be spatially resolved.
I appreciate your response and everyone else who has added to such a exciting discussion, but i find that none of the other stars/objects in the surrounding area; appear to be showing the same variances, as evident by this one object.jgabany wrote:Hello:
The difference you have noted with the other stellar object is due to variances in the atmosphere when each of the two images were taken and the methods used to process each picture. This, in addition to other less noticeable differences, is an artifact that becomes apparent when comparing astronomical images of the same object taken under different observing conditions.
Thank you very much for reviewing my project and commenting. I appreciate it (a lot!)
The_Agent wrote:I appreciate your response and everyone else who has added to such a exciting discussion, but i find that none of the other stars/objects in the surrounding area; appear to be showing the same variances, as evident by this one object.jgabany wrote:Hello:
The difference you have noted with the other stellar object is due to variances in the atmosphere when each of the two images were taken and the methods used to process each picture. This, in addition to other less noticeable differences, is an artifact that becomes apparent when comparing astronomical images of the same object taken under different observing conditions.
Thank you very much for reviewing my project and commenting. I appreciate it (a lot!)
So, i put forward the same question?, is this a new supernova or can we rule this out? also who would i contact to clarify this?.
ipaqgeek wrote:A previous poster indicated what I also was led to initially believe - that the webpage indicated that the supernova was to the right of the galaxy center instead of below the galaxy center. Here is the sentence that led us astray:
"It is visible on the right of the above before and after images of the picturesque spiral."
Of course, what was meant was that the supernova is visible on the right image of the before and after images, not that the supernova is visible on the right side of each image. What added to the confusion is the aberation that could be mistaken for a supernova by the novice stsargazer, which aberation is indeed to the right of the galaxy center as noted at the beginning of this thread.
The english language is such a hairy thing.
ipaqgeek wrote:Just for curiosity sake, I wanted to see what else stood out so I used a photoshop trick to digitally find the differences between the two pictures. It looks like this:
http://planthetrip.com/difference.jpg
The bubble looking things are caused by differences in aspect ratios between the two pictures (gets worse on the lower part of the picture). The supernova stands out quite well. The aberation caused by poor conditions is nearly as significant as the supernova using this method. Everything else disappears.