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:

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has revisited one of its most iconic and popular images: the Eagle Nebula's Pillars of Creation. This image shows the pillars as seen in visible light, capturing the multi-coloured glow of gas clouds, wispy tendrils of dark cosmic dust, and the rust-coloured elephants' trunks of the nebula's famous pillars.

The dust and gas in the pillars is seared by the intense radiation from young stars and eroded by strong winds from massive nearby stars. With these new images comes better contrast and a clearer view for astronomers to study how the structure of the pillars is changing over time.

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

edit: ha ha! Here it is
http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=119600#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. :haha:

I am disappoint in this thread.

I was expecting Terry Goodkind.

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

xoxoxoBruce;918380 wrote:

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

They'll just get bit.

What, ain't Richard Simmons one of them pillar biters?

xoxoxoBruce;918396 wrote:

And in near-infrared

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

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.

glatt;918489 wrote:

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

Agreed, the OP is much more attractive, less jarring. Probably is to most humans because it jibes with what our vision limits are used to.

Looks like vomit to me. :thepain:

You've been babysitting too much Chris. :lol2:

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

Oh noes... they are gone.

This week NASA published new astonishing high definition images of the famous Pillars of Creation—two 4-light-year-tall columns located in the Eagle Nebula, 7,000 light years from here, first photographed in 1995. The only problem is that the pillars don't exist—they were destroyed more than a thousand years ago.

:eek:

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!

Clodfobble;918693 wrote:

...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.

You don't know that. You're convinced when it goes below the horizon it just maintains orbit till you can see it again. But it could be sneaking off taking pictures of who knows what, peeking in Venus' bedroom window, or Mar's bathroom.
We all know those ass-tronomers are perverts. :yesnod:

Just look what Hubble did a few days ago, a 1.5 Billion pixel photograph.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]udAL48P5NJU[/YOUTUBEWIDE]

We are so nothing

black holes are dense

[YOUTUBE]QgNDao7m41M[/YOUTUBE]

lumberjim;919079 wrote:

We are so nothing

We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain

lumberjim;919079 wrote:

We are so nothing

[crowd]Hoooow nothing are we?[/crowd]

Happy Monkey;919113 wrote:

[crowd]Hoooow nothing are we?[/crowd]

I'm reminded of a quote from my favorite book series by David Eddings:

"Man thinks he rules the world but there are all manner of creatures who are indifferent to our overlordship."

We are the crown of creation!

Honey Badger don't care. :cool: