January 7, 2015: Pillars of Creation II

NASA felt it had been a while since we had seen this one, so they updated it using the Hubble:

That was my first post on the cellar, I think.

edit: ha ha! Here it is
http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php...600#post119600

I'm originally from New Jersey. This is what "pillars" look like there:

That's a really impressive image. We're pretty clever monkeys sometimes.

They look disheveled, too organic, tell NASA to send a Richard Simons to tighten them up.

I am disappoint in this thread.

I was expecting Terry Goodkind.

And in near-infrared... or after shrooms...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce They look disheveled, too organic, tell NASA to send a Richard Simons to tighten them up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce And in near-infrared

So says the guy who is IR blind...

Why aren't we seeing UV spectrum? It's a government cover-up, that's where all the evidence of aliens is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt I love how there is different information in different spectrums. I like this near infrared version, but the visible light one is better.

Looks like vomit to me.

You've been babysitting too much Chris.

Here's a hodge podge of the two of them.

Oh noes... they are gone.

Obviously I get how the light of their destruction hasn't reached us yet and we're looking 7,000 years into the past and all that... but how do we actually know that they were destroyed 6,000 years ago? The article just says that we've known it since 2007, and that "with our telescopes" we can... somehow see something different than what we can see? Which makes no sense, our telescopes are here where we are. Hubble is less than 350 miles up from the Earth's surface, which is nothing when you're talking about distances in light years.

My brain keeps trying to come up with some way we could know the base fact that the nearby supernova happened, and we know how big supernovas are thus we can assume we will see the Pillars get destroyed eventually, but it's not like we could detect a front wave of radiation or something else from the supernova that moves faster than light, because nothing moves faster than light.

Answers plz.

Oh wait oh wait! If the supernova were halfway between us and the Pillars, we could have seen it happen already, and know that the outward explosion was also traveling backwards towards the Pillars, which were farther away. And we could calculate the speed of the supernova explosion traveling away from us, even if we can't see it, because we know how fast that shit normally travels.

Okay, I'm fine now.

something must move faster than light

or


what do you mean by 'destroyed'? like it's a cloud formation that will have re-shaped to another configuration by the time the next 6000 years of light reaches us?

are we extrapolating from earlier pictures of 7,030 year old light?

Yeah, except it will only be 1000 years. It's 7,000 light years away, and we know it was hit* by a supernova 6,000 years ago, so in 1,000 more years we'll actually see it.


*And yeah, I think it's basically just going to be like a cloud formation that whiffs away into a new shape, on a grand scale.

so the supernova was less than 6,000 years ago?

I'd love to hang out with you two smoking grass. Except I don't think CF does that.

eeer!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble ...Which makes no sense, our telescopes are here where we are. Hubble is less than 350 miles up from the Earth's surface, which is nothing when you're talking about distances in light years.

Just look what Hubble did a few days ago, a 1.5 Billion pixel photograph.

We are so nothing

black holes are dense

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim We are so nothing

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim We are so nothing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey [crowd]Hoooow nothing are we?[/crowd]

We are the crown of creation!

Honey Badger don't care.