Comments on: The Dust of Magellan http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:09:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bertrum http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20274 Bertrum Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:24:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20274 Any one else see the space monkey just above the centre of the image? Any one else see the space monkey just above the centre of the image?

]]> By: MLP I; “The dust of Magellan” « The Ironism http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20254 MLP I; “The dust of Magellan” « The Ironism Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:21:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20254 [...] This is seriously cool stuff!   [...] [...] This is seriously cool stuff!   [...]

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20255 Irishman Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:26:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20255 Zavatar said: >If te image is seven degrees across, does that mean that the Magellan Cloud is actually 7 degrees across in the night sky? Yes, that is what is meant. The combination of the size of the Megallanic Cloud and the distance away gives a size that covers 7 degrees of the sky. Eh Nonymous said: >Why do you assume it’s a carve-out, a bubble, rather than being dust? You wrote, ” fuzziness appears to be cleared out in a circular shape (with a little uvula thingy hanging down). Why? I’m not sure. Maybe a bunch of stars blew up around the same time and cleared that region out. ” >Um, it’s a nebula… there’s intervening dust, which absorbs and then re-radiates… hm… which might show up in IR, or might not, depending… Besides the answer Phil already gave, look at the image. See all those bright spots in the black background? Distant stars or even more distant galaxies. If it were intervening dust that somehow wasn't hot enough to glow in the IR image, then it would be black with no stars visible. Zavatar said:
>If te image is seven degrees across, does that mean that the Magellan Cloud is actually 7 degrees across in the night sky?

Yes, that is what is meant. The combination of the size of the Megallanic Cloud and the distance away gives a size that covers 7 degrees of the sky.

Eh Nonymous said:
>Why do you assume it’s a carve-out, a bubble, rather than being dust? You wrote, ” fuzziness appears to be cleared out in a circular shape (with a little uvula thingy hanging down). Why? I’m not sure. Maybe a bunch of stars blew up around the same time and cleared that region out. ”

>Um, it’s a nebula… there’s intervening dust, which absorbs and then re-radiates… hm… which might show up in IR, or might not, depending…

Besides the answer Phil already gave, look at the image. See all those bright spots in the black background? Distant stars or even more distant galaxies. If it were intervening dust that somehow wasn’t hot enough to glow in the IR image, then it would be black with no stars visible.

]]> By: icemith http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20256 icemith Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:45:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20256 Make that triple. My head is full of questions, just can't help it. Re the stereoscopic view, would the starry background be sufficiently separated from the main subject, the LMC, (or any other subject for that matter), to resolve that subject much more clearly, as it should stand out somewhat. I'm guessing that anyway. It may even show which stars, galaxies - well, star systems anyway, and whispy clouds of dust or whatever, is in reality, in front. And what's with the small dark, I hesitate to say *black*, voids amidst the carpet of blue? They could be resolved as unlit opaque dust , or actually holes right through to nothingness. any other ideas? Ivan. Make that triple. My head is full of questions, just can’t help it.

Re the stereoscopic view, would the starry background be sufficiently separated from the main subject, the LMC, (or any other subject for that matter), to resolve that subject much more clearly, as it should stand out somewhat. I’m guessing that anyway.

It may even show which stars, galaxies – well, star systems anyway, and whispy clouds of dust or whatever, is in reality, in front. And what’s with the small dark, I hesitate to say *black*, voids amidst the carpet of blue? They could be resolved as unlit opaque dust , or actually holes right through to nothingness. any other ideas?

Ivan.

]]> By: icemith http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20258 icemith Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:11:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20258 Double post I know, but would a *stereo* shot in the infra-red spectrum, yield any useful information? Or even a meaningful image? I do not recall any IR shots that are not normally fuzzy and indistinct. Maybe on the scale that the LMC shot is processed, that may not apply. Ivan. Double post I know, but would a *stereo* shot in the infra-red spectrum, yield any useful information? Or even a meaningful image? I do not recall any IR shots that are not normally fuzzy and indistinct. Maybe on the scale that the LMC shot is processed, that may not apply.

Ivan.

]]> By: icemith http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20257 icemith Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:00:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20257 Beautiful photo. I'm waiting now for the Left photo to make up the stereo pair! Can someone get that taken from Pluto. I know it's another 300000 shots, but it would make a good baseline. Even better, get another lot in 120 years time when Pluto is on the other side of the Sun. Now that would be a decent stereo shot! Ivan. Beautiful photo.

I’m waiting now for the Left photo to make up the stereo pair!

Can someone get that taken from Pluto. I know it’s another 300000 shots, but it would make a good baseline. Even better, get another lot in 120 years time when Pluto is on the other side of the Sun. Now that would be a decent stereo shot!

Ivan.

]]> By: Mendeli http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20259 Mendeli Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:32:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20259 I was thinking about using that picture as a background image for a spaceship action game. I think it will probably be okay since its going to be a free game anyways. That picture will be just perfect for background graphics, I think. I'll ditch my crappy photoshop star dust thingie :) I was thinking about using that picture as a background image for a spaceship action game. I think it will probably be okay since its going to be a free game anyways. That picture will be just perfect for background graphics, I think. I’ll ditch my crappy photoshop star dust thingie :)

]]> By: ioresult http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20260 ioresult Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:21:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20260 The Bad Astronomer said: It might not even be a star at all; maybe it’s a distant luminous galaxy, apparent size shrunken by its terrible distance, with its light reddened hugely by dust inside of itself. OR its light reddened hugely by the doppler/redshift effect due to the object's cosmological distance, maybe? The Bad Astronomer said:
It might not even be a star at all; maybe it’s a distant luminous galaxy, apparent size shrunken by its terrible distance, with its light reddened hugely by dust inside of itself.

OR its light reddened hugely by the doppler/redshift effect due to the object’s cosmological distance, maybe?

]]> By: Justin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20261 Justin Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:42:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20261 The red object is probably not a star. Red is the 24 micron MIPS data, and stars just don't show up at such long wavelengths. Even relatively nearby galaxies tend to be point sources, though (resolution is about 6"). It could be an extremely dust-enshrouded star, I guess, but a background galaxy seems much more likely. The red object is probably not a star. Red is the 24 micron MIPS data, and stars just don’t show up at such long wavelengths. Even relatively nearby galaxies tend to be point sources, though (resolution is about 6″). It could be an extremely dust-enshrouded star, I guess, but a background galaxy seems much more likely.

]]> By: Navneeth http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20262 Navneeth Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:59:36 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20262 If I remember the article at the Spitzer webstie correctly, this picture represents only one-third of the entire galaxy. If I remember the article at the Spitzer webstie correctly, this picture represents only one-third of the entire galaxy.

]]> By: The Bad Astronomer http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20264 The Bad Astronomer Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:47:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20264 It's hard to tell from those images what's going on, unfortunately. And if the red object appears pointlike to Spitzer, it certainly will to a ground-based 'scope! It’s hard to tell from those images what’s going on, unfortunately. And if the red object appears pointlike to Spitzer, it certainly will to a ground-based ‘scope!

]]> By: Tom K http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20263 Tom K Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:44:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20263 Upon further review (and examining the 59MB file referenced above by Austin) I believe that the red star <i>does</i> show up in the APOD photo, just much dimmer. It's below the green bar artifact in the APOD photo. It also still appears very star-like, so I don't think it's a background galaxy. Upon further review (and examining the 59MB file referenced above by Austin) I believe that the red star does show up in the APOD photo, just much dimmer. It’s below the green bar artifact in the APOD photo. It also still appears very star-like, so I don’t think it’s a background galaxy.

]]> By: Tom K http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20269 Tom K Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:23:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20269 I don't know if I can post an image here, but I took a look at the APOD picture referenced above, and it appears that part of Phil's speculation about the blue-red pair of stars is correct. Whatever the red one is, it doesn't appear to show up in the APOD picture. I cropped, resized and rotated approximately the same area of the two pictures. Here's a URL, again hopefully not blocked: http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/2372/lmcstarsmg2.jpg I don’t know if I can post an image here, but I took a look at the APOD picture referenced above, and it appears that part of Phil’s speculation about the blue-red pair of stars is correct. Whatever the red one is, it doesn’t appear to show up in the APOD picture.

I cropped, resized and rotated approximately the same area of the two pictures. Here’s a URL, again hopefully not blocked:
http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/2372/lmcstarsmg2.jpg

]]> By: Austin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20268 Austin Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:09:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20268 Down at the bottom of the page is the full-res version: 13,250 x 13,250 pixels at a whopping 59 MB. That's a little better than that piddling 10 MB version. Down at the bottom of the page is the full-res version: 13,250 x 13,250 pixels at a whopping 59 MB.

That’s a little better than that piddling 10 MB version.

]]> By: Tom K http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20267 Tom K Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:59:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20267 A good companion to this picture is the January 26, 2006 Astronomy Photo of the Day. Here's the URL (unless it gets blocked): http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060123.html They used only a mere 1,500 images to create this one, though. A good companion to this picture is the January 26, 2006 Astronomy Photo of the Day. Here’s the URL (unless it gets blocked):
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060123.html

They used only a mere 1,500 images to create this one, though.

]]> By: The Bad Astronomer http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20266 The Bad Astronomer Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:42:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20266 Eh nonymous, what you see <i>glowing</i> in that image is dust. Spitzer is an infrared telescope, and warm dust glow in the IR. So if you see a patch where the image is dark, it's because there is <i>no</i> dust there (or the dust is so cold it doesn't emit at those wavelengths). That's why I think it may be a carved-out region. Plus, the LMC is lousy with supernova remnants and hot stars, so it is a good first assumption. Zavatar: yes, you are right. I saw the LMC for the first time in 2004 (with the Small MC too) just hanging over me in the Australian sky. It was <i>incredible</i>. They are big objects, far bigger than, say, the Andromeda galaxy, and a lot brighter too. Eh nonymous, what you see glowing in that image is dust. Spitzer is an infrared telescope, and warm dust glow in the IR. So if you see a patch where the image is dark, it’s because there is no dust there (or the dust is so cold it doesn’t emit at those wavelengths). That’s why I think it may be a carved-out region. Plus, the LMC is lousy with supernova remnants and hot stars, so it is a good first assumption.

Zavatar: yes, you are right. I saw the LMC for the first time in 2004 (with the Small MC too) just hanging over me in the Australian sky. It was incredible. They are big objects, far bigger than, say, the Andromeda galaxy, and a lot brighter too.

]]> By: Space Cadet http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20265 Space Cadet Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:31:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20265 I found the little anthropomorphism amusing, but Eh N's description works as well. (You from Florida?) Anyway, cool pic. I found the little anthropomorphism amusing, but Eh N’s description works as well. (You from Florida?)

Anyway, cool pic.

]]> By: Eh Nonymous http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20270 Eh Nonymous Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:22:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20270 Phil, Why do you assume it's a carve-out, a bubble, rather than being dust? You wrote, " fuzziness appears to be cleared out in a circular shape (with a little uvula thingy hanging down). Why? I’m not sure. Maybe a bunch of stars blew up around the same time and cleared that region out. " Um, it's a nebula... there's intervening dust, which absorbs and then re-radiates... hm... which might show up in IR, or might not, depending... When a dark area with stars, in a roughly circular shape, appears superimposed on a colorful thing, my first thought is, dust. That means no, it's not a carve-out; nothing blew up in the LMC; rather, there's a more nearby bunch of stuff. The stuff could be ISM, or it could be a gas-cloud, but to be that kind of size... I'd guess it's fairly close. The uvula is probably a gap in the dust cloud, not a hanging chad (if you will) in the LMC itself. Apologies if I'm barking up the wrong cloud with this. Eh N. Phil,

Why do you assume it’s a carve-out, a bubble, rather than being dust? You wrote, ” fuzziness appears to be cleared out in a circular shape (with a little uvula thingy hanging down). Why? I’m not sure. Maybe a bunch of stars blew up around the same time and cleared that region out. ”

Um, it’s a nebula… there’s intervening dust, which absorbs and then re-radiates… hm… which might show up in IR, or might not, depending…

When a dark area with stars, in a roughly circular shape, appears superimposed on a colorful thing, my first thought is, dust. That means no, it’s not a carve-out; nothing blew up in the LMC; rather, there’s a more nearby bunch of stuff.

The stuff could be ISM, or it could be a gas-cloud, but to be that kind of size… I’d guess it’s fairly close. The uvula is probably a gap in the dust cloud, not a hanging chad (if you will) in the LMC itself.

Apologies if I’m barking up the wrong cloud with this.

Eh N.

]]> By: Zavatar http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20271 Zavatar Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:03:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20271 Okay, stupid question time: If te image is seven degrees across, does that mean that the Magellan Cloud is actually 7 degrees across in the night sky? Okay, stupid question time:
If te image is seven degrees across, does that mean that the Magellan Cloud is actually 7 degrees across in the night sky?

]]> By: DrFlimmer http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20272 DrFlimmer Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:20:36 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20272 I liked this picture so much that it is the background of my desktop right now. It´s very great and that not only in size ;) I liked this picture so much that it is the background of my desktop right now. It´s very great and that not only in size ;)

]]> By: Skeptico http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/comment-page-1/#comment-20273 Skeptico Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:32:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/06/the-dust-of-magellan/#comment-20273 I swear I can see the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that first picture. I swear I can see the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that first picture.

]]>