Comments on: Face on Beauty http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/ 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. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:47:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: washington dc beauty salons http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-95519 washington dc beauty salons Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:46:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-95519 <strong>washington dc beauty salons</strong> [...] photos that accompany this post do very much recall aspects of projects like Sarajevo, San Francisco, Berlin. There is beauty in the light on these heaps of forms, the darkness between them, and the questions they raise. Also - [...] washington dc beauty salons

[…] photos that accompany this post do very much recall aspects of projects like Sarajevo, San Francisco, Berlin. There is beauty in the light on these heaps of forms, the darkness between them, and the questions they raise. Also - […]

]]>
By: Russ Brown http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57369 Russ Brown Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:48:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57369 Hey Phil! I'm making a belated addition to this entry to ask a question that you may be able to answer for the less astronomically enlightened among us. I know how you love a good question! Looking at this photo raised some questions about such galaxies in my mind. Firstly, what are we actually seeing in galaxies like this? (Apart from the bleeding-obvious!) Are the whitish areas simply clouds of squillions of stars, too numerous and distant to distinguish individually and what are the brownish laces intertwined through them composed of? Also, we often see a dazzlingly bright area at the centre of such galaxies. Is this just millions of bright stars condensed in a (comparatively) small area? If there is such a hugely bright area at the centre of the Milky Way, how come we don't see a huge, great, dazzling light anywhere in the night sky? Even though we're out in the "burbs" of the MW, I would have thought that, judging by the pictures, this area would be big and bright enough to be a significant and obvious feature in the night sky. Sorry if I'm being a bit plodding, but I did genuinely wonder! Thanks! Russ Brown Hey Phil!

I’m making a belated addition to this entry to ask a question that you may be able to answer for the less astronomically enlightened among us. I know how you love a good question!

Looking at this photo raised some questions about such galaxies in my mind. Firstly, what are we actually seeing in galaxies like this? (Apart from the bleeding-obvious!) Are the whitish areas simply clouds of squillions of stars, too numerous and distant to distinguish individually and what are the brownish laces intertwined through them composed of? Also, we often see a dazzlingly bright area at the centre of such galaxies. Is this just millions of bright stars condensed in a (comparatively) small area? If there is such a hugely bright area at the centre of the Milky Way, how come we don’t see a huge, great, dazzling light anywhere in the night sky? Even though we’re out in the “burbs” of the MW, I would have thought that, judging by the pictures, this area would be big and bright enough to be a significant and obvious feature in the night sky.

Sorry if I’m being a bit plodding, but I did genuinely wonder! Thanks!

Russ Brown

]]>
By: The Centipede http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57368 The Centipede Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:54:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57368 > wanna bet that there are civilizations a billion years older than ours?? The Fermi Paradox makes me not a betting man, although the potential for civilizations a billion years deader than ours is a distinct possibility. > wanna bet that there are civilizations a billion years older than ours??

The Fermi Paradox makes me not a betting man, although the potential for civilizations a billion years deader than ours is a distinct possibility.

]]>
By: Seed's Daily Zeitgeist: 11/30/2007 - General Science http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57367 Seed's Daily Zeitgeist: 11/30/2007 - General Science Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:47:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57367 [...] Face on Beauty This spiral galaxy might as well be saying "cheese." [...] […] Face on Beauty This spiral galaxy might as well be saying "cheese." […]

]]>
By: genesgalore http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57366 genesgalore Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:05:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57366 imagine how many life forms in that one. wanna bet that there are civilizations a billion years older than ours?? imagine how many life forms in that one. wanna bet that there are civilizations a billion years older than ours??

]]>
By: Sir Craig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57365 Sir Craig Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:37:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57365 But...but...Answers in Genesis states without a shred of doubt that the universe is only 6-10 thousand years old! That galaxy has to be closer than 30 million light years, or else we shouldn't be able to see it! And I see people here saying you can see it with the naked eye or binoculars, so that's further proof it has to be closer than you say! You lie!!! Long live Ken Ham!!! (And yes, this is total snarkiness - the true magic of the universe is lost on pinheads like Ken Ham and all the clueless twits writing for AiG. The universe's beauty has no need for another myth to explain it.) But…but…Answers in Genesis states without a shred of doubt that the universe is only 6-10 thousand years old! That galaxy has to be closer than 30 million light years, or else we shouldn’t be able to see it!

And I see people here saying you can see it with the naked eye or binoculars, so that’s further proof it has to be closer than you say! You lie!!! Long live Ken Ham!!!

(And yes, this is total snarkiness - the true magic of the universe is lost on pinheads like Ken Ham and all the clueless twits writing for AiG. The universe’s beauty has no need for another myth to explain it.)

]]>
By: franKnarf’s bloGolb » Blog Archive » Nickel Mine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57364 franKnarf’s bloGolb » Blog Archive » Nickel Mine Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:37:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/29/face-on-beauty/#comment-57364 [...] Bad Astronomy Blog » Face on Beauty [...] […] Bad Astronomy Blog » Face on Beauty […]

]]>