<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hanny and the Voorwerp</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:12:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hanny van Arkel</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252350</link>
		<dc:creator>Hanny van Arkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252350</guid>
		<description>Hello!

Sorry my comment is a bit late, but I just read all of yours and they all made me smile! :D And very nice article - thanks!

And yes, &#039;voorwerp&#039; is usually used for smaller objects, but it&#039;s not really *that* interesting that people with cameras want to hear, if you see what I mean. ;)

Cheers,
Hanny.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello!</p>
<p>Sorry my comment is a bit late, but I just read all of yours and they all made me smile! <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' />  And very nice article &#8211; thanks!</p>
<p>And yes, &#8216;voorwerp&#8217; is usually used for smaller objects, but it&#8217;s not really *that* interesting that people with cameras want to hear, if you see what I mean. <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Hanny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NGC3314</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252349</link>
		<dc:creator>NGC3314</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252349</guid>
		<description>For Buzz Parsec - the cloud isn&#039;t illuminated by a jet as such, but by X-ray and UV radiation from teh (extant or extinct) quasar core. There is some evidence that the 5-billion-solar-mass hydrogen cloud lies on the far side of the galaxy, making the extra light-time delay up to 200,000 years. There is a one-sided radio jet (odd enough in a spiral galaxy) but not 2.

I think a digit slipped in copying the NED redshift - IC 2497 is at z=0.0499, around 700 Mlyr.

And thanks for all the kind words in the effectiveness of the comic - that&#039;s what we aimed for! It was an extra freebie that the artists seriously improved my hair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For Buzz Parsec &#8211; the cloud isn&#8217;t illuminated by a jet as such, but by X-ray and UV radiation from teh (extant or extinct) quasar core. There is some evidence that the 5-billion-solar-mass hydrogen cloud lies on the far side of the galaxy, making the extra light-time delay up to 200,000 years. There is a one-sided radio jet (odd enough in a spiral galaxy) but not 2.</p>
<p>I think a digit slipped in copying the NED redshift &#8211; IC 2497 is at z=0.0499, around 700 Mlyr.</p>
<p>And thanks for all the kind words in the effectiveness of the comic &#8211; that&#8217;s what we aimed for! It was an extra freebie that the artists seriously improved my hair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raskolnikov</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252348</link>
		<dc:creator>Raskolnikov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252348</guid>
		<description>&quot;Thing&quot; in dutch is really &quot;ding&quot;. &quot;Voorwerp&quot; is &quot;Object&quot;. I&#039;m surprised my fellow dutch locutors would say otherwise. Of course, speaking loosely, there is not a big difference between &quot;thing&quot; and &quot;object&quot;. But still, for this once I wanted to be nitpicking.

None of that really matters for the astronomical object it designates anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Thing&#8221; in dutch is really &#8220;ding&#8221;. &#8220;Voorwerp&#8221; is &#8220;Object&#8221;. I&#8217;m surprised my fellow dutch locutors would say otherwise. Of course, speaking loosely, there is not a big difference between &#8220;thing&#8221; and &#8220;object&#8221;. But still, for this once I wanted to be nitpicking.</p>
<p>None of that really matters for the astronomical object it designates anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Markle</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252347</link>
		<dc:creator>Markle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 09:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252347</guid>
		<description>With all due respect to those with the Dutch names, Hanny herself says she meant &#039;object&#039; 1:12 in

Perhaps it&#039;s a regional thing and in Heerlen Voorwerp maps better to object?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all due respect to those with the Dutch names, Hanny herself says she meant &#8216;object&#8217; 1:12 in</p>
<p>Perhaps it&#8217;s a regional thing and in Heerlen Voorwerp maps better to object?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buzz Parsec</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252346</link>
		<dc:creator>Buzz Parsec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252346</guid>
		<description>Thanks, @Dan Fischer...

So my numbers should be 570,000,000 years ago for &quot;now&quot;, and 570,100,000 years ago for &quot;then&quot;.  I got the 100 thousand lightyears from the fact that the distance between the galaxy and the cloud seems to be about the same as the diameter of the galaxy (to an order of magnitude) and the Milky Way is about 100,000 lightyears in diameter.  Clearly very rough numbers...

Also, the quasar shut down sometime before 570,000,000 years ago but more recently than 570,100,000 years ago.

When we look out into the universe, we are seeing objects at various distances and of various ages.  Kind of like trying to piece together the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon by looking at a pile of rubble at the bottom of a landslide.  (If you&#039;ve ever been there, you may have noticed that there are literally hundreds if not thousand of landslides lining the canyon, along with hundreds of cinder cones.  Oooh!  Volcanoes!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, @Dan Fischer&#8230;</p>
<p>So my numbers should be 570,000,000 years ago for &#8220;now&#8221;, and 570,100,000 years ago for &#8220;then&#8221;.  I got the 100 thousand lightyears from the fact that the distance between the galaxy and the cloud seems to be about the same as the diameter of the galaxy (to an order of magnitude) and the Milky Way is about 100,000 lightyears in diameter.  Clearly very rough numbers&#8230;</p>
<p>Also, the quasar shut down sometime before 570,000,000 years ago but more recently than 570,100,000 years ago.</p>
<p>When we look out into the universe, we are seeing objects at various distances and of various ages.  Kind of like trying to piece together the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon by looking at a pile of rubble at the bottom of a landslide.  (If you&#8217;ve ever been there, you may have noticed that there are literally hundreds if not thousand of landslides lining the canyon, along with hundreds of cinder cones.  Oooh!  Volcanoes!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Fischer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252345</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 04:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252345</guid>
		<description>The redshift of  IC 2947 is 0.042477 according to the NED database; this translates to a distance (all the different cosmological distance formulae deliver roughly the same result at such low redshifts) of about 570 million light years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The redshift of  IC 2947 is 0.042477 according to the NED database; this translates to a distance (all the different cosmological distance formulae deliver roughly the same result at such low redshifts) of about 570 million light years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buzz Parsec</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252344</link>
		<dc:creator>Buzz Parsec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 04:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252344</guid>
		<description>So is it the great green gob of science, or is it the great green gLob of science?  The web site says &quot;gob&quot;, but the book (on page 11) says &quot;glob&quot;.  Listen up people, we need to get these technical terms right!

Seriously, this is way cool.

I&#039;m a little confuse about the geometry though.  Is the current thinking that there&#039;s a big cloud of gas surrounding the galaxy, and the quasar, when it was active was emitting two jets out of its poles, one more or less pointed towards us and the other in the opposite direction, but has since stopped?  Then the jet pointed towards us faded from sight, but the jet pointed away from us, zapping the cloud, making the big hole in it, and making the gas surrounding the hole glow intensely, hasn&#039;t faded yet because it is several hundred thousand lightyears farther away, and we&#039;re still seeing it as it was &quot;then&quot; versus what it looks like &quot;now&quot;?  Where &quot;now&quot; is 10 billion years ago and &quot;then&quot; is 10,000,100,000 years ago.

(I had to invent the distance out of whole cloth.  The book and accompanying materials say that the Voorwerp was spectroscopically determined to have the same red shift and thus be at the same distance as the neighboring galaxy, IC 2947, but I can&#039;t find the actual red shif t or distance *anywhere*.  Numbers, please!  This is SCIENCE.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So is it the great green gob of science, or is it the great green gLob of science?  The web site says &#8220;gob&#8221;, but the book (on page 11) says &#8220;glob&#8221;.  Listen up people, we need to get these technical terms right!</p>
<p>Seriously, this is way cool.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a little confuse about the geometry though.  Is the current thinking that there&#8217;s a big cloud of gas surrounding the galaxy, and the quasar, when it was active was emitting two jets out of its poles, one more or less pointed towards us and the other in the opposite direction, but has since stopped?  Then the jet pointed towards us faded from sight, but the jet pointed away from us, zapping the cloud, making the big hole in it, and making the gas surrounding the hole glow intensely, hasn&#8217;t faded yet because it is several hundred thousand lightyears farther away, and we&#8217;re still seeing it as it was &#8220;then&#8221; versus what it looks like &#8220;now&#8221;?  Where &#8220;now&#8221; is 10 billion years ago and &#8220;then&#8221; is 10,000,100,000 years ago.</p>
<p>(I had to invent the distance out of whole cloth.  The book and accompanying materials say that the Voorwerp was spectroscopically determined to have the same red shift and thus be at the same distance as the neighboring galaxy, IC 2947, but I can&#8217;t find the actual red shif t or distance *anywhere*.  Numbers, please!  This is SCIENCE.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Mitcham</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252343</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Mitcham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 03:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252343</guid>
		<description>Ok, it means &quot;thing&quot; then, I was close. I&#039;m not as cunning a linguist as you people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, it means &#8220;thing&#8221; then, I was close. I&#8217;m not as cunning a linguist as you people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Fischer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252342</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:53:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252342</guid>
		<description>Having just read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://hannysvoorwerp.zooniverse.org/comic-index/comicbook&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comic online&lt;/a&gt;  I&#039;m impressed: This is quite a way to communicate (rather complex) astrophysical ideas, with some astronomy politics thrown in. And the concluding words on page 34 are just great. Next: the movie ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having just read the <a href="http://hannysvoorwerp.zooniverse.org/comic-index/comicbook" rel="nofollow">comic online</a>  I&#8217;m impressed: This is quite a way to communicate (rather complex) astrophysical ideas, with some astronomy politics thrown in. And the concluding words on page 34 are just great. Next: the movie &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MadScientist</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/03/hanny-and-the-voorwerp/#comment-252341</link>
		<dc:creator>MadScientist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:38:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=20457#comment-252341</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s the fuss? Don&#039;t people recognize a galactic Green Gummi Bear when they see one?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the fuss? Don&#8217;t people recognize a galactic Green Gummi Bear when they see one?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: basic

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2013-06-18 16:44:35 -->