🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 11:52:29 UTC No. 16465914
Post your favorite NGC object. Bonus points if doesn't have a Messier number.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:57:39 UTC No. 16466171
>>16465914
Are there many more stars around the outer band, with a huge gap of not many stars, towards the denser center?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:43:20 UTC No. 16466397
>>16466171
Not necessarily though sometimes that happens with ring galaxies. What you are seeing is bright blue stars (young stars) that are born in the edges where the rotation mixes up gasses while the more stable and dense center has burned up it's blue stars ages ago and has mostly red stars left. The center is also thicker and so has more dust in the way. The overall brightness of the image tells you where the stars actually are, the yellow hue is just millions of stars that are individually impossible to perceive while the blue dots are individual blue giants or groups of giants without so many stars around them making them more distinct.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:22:02 UTC No. 16466438
So trying to break down the image:
-Center very white spiral (looks like hurricane).
-Two distinct brown arms in opposite directions
-a diffuse yellowish glow extending upper left to lower right (you are saying those diffuse yellow ephemeral pixels Are stars? That's hard to believe, they are just a different type than the bright outer blue and the inner white?)
-a bit of emptyish space extending lower left to upper right (which I commented taking note of the intrigue of an apparent relative absence)
-circular band of blue stars
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:24:10 UTC No. 16466439
>>16466438
>>16466397
You clearly see dots of light through the diffuse yellow area, if the diffuse yellow itself is all pixels worth of stars, why are they so diffuse and unpoingiant
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:16:48 UTC No. 16467170
>>16466438
>>16466439
You are getting a false image of how galaxies and stars look from the way stars look inside the galaxy. From this distance each star is basically as far away from us as any other so only the brightest ones show up and all the biggest ones are blue giants. On earth we see nearby faint stars but bright stars show up from further away. But out there in the universe vast majority of stars are small red stars which when paired up with other more common main sequence stars form an uniform haze. Even a close by galaxy like Andromeda shows up like this, with uniform haze and blue spots for the star forming regions until zooming in very very close
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomi
(or this if your computer can't load the full image: https://esahubble.org/images/heic15
Compare how the thumbnail looks vs the full image on this page and Andromeda is basically the only galaxy where an image like this is even possible and even at the greatest zoom in this incredible image many dots of light aren't even stars yet but still star clusters.
Think about it like this, the image contains something like 100-1000 billion stars but the image has only 15 million pixels and good third of those are low density regions in the corners and between the galactic arms. So each pixel on average has between 10 000 and 100 000 stars in it. So while you can pick up certain individual stars or more likely clusters of stars in the stellar nurseries (the blue spots) all other stars are just aggregate light. The inner "white" stars are also just the same red stars most of the galaxy is made up from (though the core has lot of blue stars as well) but the density of stars there is just so high it lights up differently. The dark brown clouds are dust and gas clouds.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:38:01 UTC No. 16467180
THAT YOUNG STAR WAS ONLY 17.999999999999999999 MYA
YOU FUCKING SICKO!!!!
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 04:53:21 UTC No. 16467986
>>16467170
Still can zoom in far enough to tell those are stars.
Really the blue ones on the outer edge are That much bigger and That much brighter?
And stars Sooooo much further away shine through and look big?
But parsecs of golden haze contain billion of dot pixels, are All stars themselves, but So much smaller you can hardly see them?
What percent of those middle layer golden dust stars have planets orbiting?
There Is really no better instrumental processing views zooms enhances of the nearest galaxy to get any confirmation there are 50 billion stars there instead of just dust gas haze?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:25:34 UTC No. 16469223
>>16467180
Kek
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:57:49 UTC No. 16469344
>>16467986
>There Is really no better instrumental processing views zooms enhances of the nearest galaxy to get any confirmation there are 50 billion stars there instead of just dust gas haze?
Is there?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:16:04 UTC No. 16469359
>>16465914
How do you know the telescope isnt seeing an atom, and you think its a galaxy?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 08:40:47 UTC No. 16469425
>>16467986
>That much bigger
For an image with the given resolution you're not seeing the size of the stars, just the brightness of the local angular region. Any star that would be physically large enough to occupy two pixels would become a black hole.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:22:00 UTC No. 16469910
>>16469359
Galaxies don't look anything like OP pic when you look at them thought a telescope. It is only because almost nobody bothers to look at them through a telescope that NASA is able to pass off their fake goyslop soience pictures and have the IFLS fags think they're real.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:32:05 UTC No. 16469918
>>16467170
>wiki says full resolution
>it's actually 1/54 of the resolution
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:32:27 UTC No. 16469921
>>16465914
>NGC object
who the fucks know any of that?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:38:15 UTC No. 16470174
>>16469921
no gay caboose
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 01:58:38 UTC No. 16470280
>>16469425
That's what I don't get: stars in foreground too small to see:
Stars behind the galaxy, millions of light years away are so much bigger (or, if brighter, why all those that much brighter?) than the foreground ones they are seen?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:22:46 UTC No. 16471589
>>16469921
The New General Catalogue should be familiar to any amateur astronomer who enjoys observing deep sky objects.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:14:58 UTC No. 16472249
>>16469910
You can literally see the andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. I've seen it in an amateurs telescope and it looks exactly what the spiral galaxies that nasa posts. Do retards like you actually exist or are you just trolling. It's hard to tell sometimes with you people.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:18:35 UTC No. 16472253
>>16467170
>On earth we see nearby faint stars but bright stars show up from further away.
On earth you can't even see the closest stars to us at all without a telescope.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:12:31 UTC No. 16472393
>>16472253
It's called Milky Way for a reason!
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 02:50:09 UTC No. 16472799
>>16472253
>On earth you can't even see the closest stars to us at all without a telescope
What are the stars in night sky
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 02:55:07 UTC No. 16472810
>>16472799
you're extremely dumb, why is that such a common characteristic of astronomy enthusiasts?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:28:21 UTC No. 16472875
>>16472810
Are you talking about Proxima Centauri? That's the closest but it's a red dwarf so it's too dim to see without a telescope. The other stars in the Alpha Centauri system aren't much further away and are sunlike, making them some of the brightest in the night sky.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:39:08 UTC No. 16474623
>>16465914
Niggers gagging on my big white cock