Andromeda Galaxy Revealed In A New Light
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 май 2010
- / sciencereason ... Swift's UV portrait of the Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
NASA's Swift satellite has acquired the highest-resolution view of the neighboring spiral galaxy M31. Also known as the Andromeda Galaxy, M31 is the largest and closest such galaxy to our own. It's more than 220,000 light-years across and lies 2.5 million light-years away in the constellation Andromeda.
Swift's Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT) acquired 330 images of M31 at wavelengths of 192.8, 224.6, and 260 nanometers. The images represent a total exposure time of 24 hours. Some 20,000 ultraviolet sources are visible in the image, including M32, a small galaxy in orbit around M31. Dense clusters of hot, young, blue stars sparkle in the disk beyond the galaxy's smooth, redder central bulge. Star clusters are especially plentiful along a ring about 150,000 light-years across.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencetv
• / ffreethinker
• / rationalhumanism
---
Swift Makes Best-ever Ultraviolet Portrait of Andromeda Galaxy
In a break from its usual task of searching for distant cosmic explosions, NASA's Swift satellite has acquired the highest-resolution view of a neighboring spiral galaxy ever attained in the ultraviolet. The galaxy, known as M31 in the constellation Andromeda, is the largest and closest spiral galaxy to our own.
"Swift reveals about 20,000 ultraviolet sources in M31, especially hot, young stars and dense star clusters," said Stefan Immler, a research scientist on the Swift team at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Of particular importance is that we have covered the galaxy in three ultraviolet filters. That will let us study M31's star-formation processes in much greater detail than previously possible."
M31, also known as the Andromeda Galaxy, is more than 220,000 light-years across and lies 2.5 million light-years away. On a clear, dark night, the galaxy is faintly visible as a misty patch to the naked eye. Between May 25 and July 26, 2008, Swift's Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT) acquired 330 images of M31 at wavelengths of 192.8, 224.6, and 260 nanometers. The images represent a total exposure time of 24 hours.
The task of assembling the resulting 85 gigabytes of images fell to Erin Grand, an undergraduate student at the University of Maryland at College Park who worked with Immler as an intern this summer. "After ten weeks of processing that immense amount of data, I'm extremely proud of this new view of M31," she said.
Several features are immediately apparent in the new mosaic. The first is the striking difference between the galaxy's central bulge and its spiral arms. "The bulge is smoother and redder because it's full of older and cooler stars," Immler explained. "Very few new stars form here because most of the materials needed to make them have been depleted."
Dense clusters of hot, young, blue stars sparkle beyond the central bulge. As in our own galaxy, M31's disk and spiral arms contain most of the gas and dust needed to produce new generations of stars. Star clusters are especially plentiful in an enormous ring about 150,000 light-years across.
What triggers the unusually intense star formation in Andromeda's "ring of fire"? Previous studies have shown that tides raised by the many small satellite galaxies in orbit around M31 help boost the interactions within gas clouds that result in new stars.
In 1885, an exploding star in M31's central bulge became bright enough to see with the naked eye. This was the first supernova ever recorded in any galaxy beyond our own Milky Way. "We expect an average of about one supernova per century in galaxies like M31," Immler said. "Perhaps we won't have to wait too long for another one."
"Swift is surveying nearby galaxies like M31 so astronomers can better understand star- formation conditions and relate them to conditions in the distant galaxies where we see gamma-ray bursts occurring," said Neil Gehrels, the mission's principal investigator at NASA Goddard. Since Swift's November 2005 launch, the satellite has detected more than 400 gamma-ray bursts -- massive, far-off explosions likely associated with the births of black holes.
Swift is managed by NASA Goddard. International collaborators include the University of Leicester and Mullard Space Sciences Laboratory in the United Kingdom, Brera Observatory and the Italian Space Agency in Italy, and additional partners in Germany and Japan.
• www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swi...
• astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/out...
. 
Наука
That's really neat how you can look at it in different wavelengths and figure things out. Also, the narrator has an awesome accent! XD
Wow, such natural beauty.
Just wonderful
Thanks Arnie
@Valkes
Another interesting point to note, Sandia claims their "z machine" produces emissions that mirror celestial objects. The "z machine" doesn't use gravity, it doesn't use fusion, it doesn't create "black hole" or "neutron star", it uses electric discharge to produce these effects, just like the objects in space do.
nice vid. A planet was discovered in Andromeda back in 2009
@Valkes
Stars are spherical because they form out of "z pinches" along birkeland currents. Z pinches spontaneously produce spherical bodies. If you want a concrete example, look at the slag from an arc welder. Those little "sparks" that fly away from the arc are spherical due to the z pinch effect.
That stars emit "absoption spectrum" is not verification of stellar fusion. Fluorescent lights produce "absorption spectra".
Z pinches can and do transmute elements into heavier elements.
@MakeNine42
Supernovae are said to be "exploding stars". Electric stars are mere loads in a circuit. They are cathodes. Fluctuations in the current cause "double layers" in the plasma around a star. If the threshold for that DL is exceeded, the current from the entire circuit can dump into the DL, causing it to expand violently. This offers a reasonable explanation for a "supernova" driven by electric discharge, not gravity.
@Valkes
These "shells" you refer to are also strong support for electrical models of the sun. Plasmas self-organize in the presence of electric fields, they separate by species according to electrical properties and have sharp boundaries known as "double layers". We see such DL's in the atmosphere of Earth, as well, where we observe other evidence of these electric fields (spontaneous lasing in the atmosphere, aurorae, etcetera).
@julsHz
It is not "temps" that ionize matter, electricity ionizes matter. If you'd ever taken even a remedial chemistry course you'd know that.
@Sahuagin True, you can't go faster than light, but you can bend space in order to get where you want to go without traveling faster than light (Alcubierre drive).
Hot young blue stars.
Sounds like Hollywood to me.
@Kayzaks thanks for your reply ...actually i am electrical engineer..now shifted to Business Management, i could understand the basic theory and application, if the theory is not so complicated. start it in your way...it will be good if I understand...if not take it easy.
@Valkes
The formation of planets is readily explained in electric models. Experiments done by Ransom, et al, show quite convincingly that electric arcs produce spherical debris when they impinge on any number of materials, including rock. You can also simply examine the slag from an arc welder, it's all spherical. Planets are spherical because they were formed by electric arcs. Electrical ejection from other planets or from the sun is likely.
@fertilizerspike "Fusion in stars
A star's tremendous energy comes from a process known as nuclear fusion. This process begins when the temperature of the core of the developing star reaches about 1 million K.
A star develops from a giant, slowly rotating cloud that consists almost entirely of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium."
This is from NASA's official website in case you're wondering.
*Sarcasm: I know, I know, it just must be a conspiracy right?
@fertilizerspike Yes, its a huge switch, very huge.
@truvelocity
Stars are not powered by "fuel', they are lit electrically.
@Kossimer
No, stars are not powered by "fuel", they are lit electrically. Stars are powered by galactic-scale electric currents in space. Space is filled with plasma. Plasmas spontaneously generate electric fields, which accelerate particles, which in turn generate more electric fields and magnetic fields. This is elementary plasma physics, all testable in the lab. Where has stellar fusion been replicated? Where are gases that collapse under their own weight? Gases don't do that.
@Valkes
Wrong. Slag from an arc welder is spherical because it formed in a "z pinch" from an electric arc. That's what z pinches do, they spontaneously produce spherules. If what you say is true, the slag from an arc welder would produce "teardrop" shapes, not spheres, as the "gravity" from the Earth distorted the molten metal. This isn't what we see, however. Your ignorance is getting in your way again. You start by assuming I'm wrong, then dredge up any fable you've heard that contradicts me.
@superstrok99 Yes, looks like a smudge
this is a cool vid
Is that why our life planet is on the third outer arm of our galaxy? Because, the fuel needed for newly formed stars are contained in the outer arms?
@Valkes
I don't have to "account for" planets. We observe planets, they exist, it's not up for debate. What I'll say about planets in our solar system is that they are not driven around the sun by gravity. All planets and the sun are charged bodies immersed in a plasma environment. Gravity is moot. Using the observed orbits plugged into gravity models to derive masses produces specious results, like a density for the sun indicating it's gaseous, when we observe it is quite solid.
@Valkes
You're approaching this discussion from a standpoint of extreme weakness when you keep avoiding the observed fact that the sun is a solid body, not a ball of gas. This "dark line spectrum" you mention has no bearing on the electrical nature of stars. You suggest it's a result of light passing through a "gas", well, the material of the sun's corona (which has no reason to exist if the sun is powered internally by fusion) is plasma, which does not behave as a "gas" does.
@julsHz
How interesting that you have nothing to say about the subject at hand but so much to say about me.
@fertilizerspike No, no... not at all. Just the electric stars. They have giant switches.
@Kayzaks can you explain clearly about bending space (time)...!
and the mathametical applications...!
@Valkes Well said. They are assertions, he's getting his information from "The Electric Universe" which is a book by an Australian physicist who has not had any of his work accepted under peer review. It has been looked at by the experts with credentials as utter nonsense.
@fertilizerspike I'm not sure, but its to turn the sun on and off and so far, its too big to turn off if we wanted to.
@kusalaviro That's only the known and observed universe.....
@Kayzaks
This was exactly my point, that space is an imaginary construct, and therefore not "real". Proposing that gravitation be illustrated mathematically by "bending" space solves absolutely nothing, incidentally. We're still stuck with inexplicable observations in the context of gravity models. The idea of "gravity" is one of the most dismal failures that cosmology has ever encountered.
4 people give this a thumbs down? WTF?
@Valkes said:
"Fluorescent lights produce the absorption spectrum for the same reason stars do."
Exactly. What is it you want me to "account for"? Excitation of molecules produces the spectra. The explanation is simple and doesn't rely on speculative and unproven notions the way stellar fusion models attempt to explain it. For the record, "z pinch" is not my theory, it's observable reality. Check out Sandia's "Z machine" for proof.
@Valkes
What is it you want me to "prove"?
@truvelocity
Is it your contention that everything electrical must have an on/off switch? Does lightning have an on/off switch? What about volcanoes? What about tornadoes? What about galvanic circuits that corrode battleships?
@teemuruskeepaa That is if FTL is even possible ;) Not to mention if cold fusion is possible... :P
@Valkes
I didn't assert that, but I'll assert now that most of the observable universe is plasma. I'll also assert that plasmas are affected about thirty times more strongly by electric and magnetic forces than by the puny pseudoforce of "gravity". Plasma physics tells us that charged bodies able to interact electrically are negligibly affected by gravity. Gravity is moot in the universe at large.
@TheReaverOfDarkness Sounds dutch or possibly danish to me.
@fertilizerspike I suggest you look at the paper, The speed of gravity'", Gerald E. Marsha and Charles Nissim-Sabat, which is in Phys. Lett. A262, p. 257. They end up with a field that is directed along a line joining their observation point to the present position, not where the object was earlier and their have also been measurements of the speed of gravity get a result within +/- 20% of the speed of light. A basic text is "Introduction to Electrodynamics" - Read that instead of nonsense.
@truvelocity
What's a huge switch?
@werecow2003 Danish then, I lived in norway for a couple of years and worked with a lot of swedes so I can say it's neither of those accents.
@Sahuagin said:
"For any positive mass to go light speed would take infinite energy"
This is an utterly baseless claim not based on any empirical referent or any experimental verification.
@Valkes
Yes, the morphology of many galaxies differ, and all morphologies of all observed galaxies have been reproduced in miniature by plasma physicists, from spirals, barred spirals, ellipticals and so on. Your claim that studies show "the more current applied" the faster the systems break down is unfounded. There are many documented effects of electric discharge in plasma, and they don't all follow your simple rule you've devised (apparently all on your own).
@julsHz
You're talking about the "temperature" of the photosphere, not the surface. This is equivalent to the "color temperature" of fluorescent light tubes, which typically range from 3000-5000 kelvin or thereabouts. The "temperature" corresponds to the colors given off by "black body radiators" at a given temperature. Fluorescent light tubes are not black body radiators, and neither is the sun. Your beliefs are erroneous. TRACE, SOHO and other satellites have imaged the surface. It's solid.
@jack999rocks This small box won't be able to do that. If you have a basic Math background (Calculus, Algebra, etc) & a solid understanding of General Relativity, You should start by reading books on Differential Geometry or visit University Lectures on that subject. Ideally look for ones that are specifically aimed at Physicists interested in the Math behind General Relativity.
What kind of background do you have? Perhaps we should discuss this via Messages.
@fertilizerspike Actually they are powered by fuel. It's called hydrogen and the by-product is helium. Besides, even if it were electric, where would the electricity be coming from? It doesn't just come out of no where.
@Valkes
This is yet another toy theory proposed when observations defy previous expectations. It's more ad hoc chicanery, like adding epicycles to explain planetary orbits in a geocentric solar system. These "oscillations" were summoned up to explain the inability of researchers to actually detect the neutrinos they claimed must be coming from the sun. Instead of pronouncing their multi-million dollar efforts a failure, they conjured up magical properties of their hypothetical particles.
@Sahuagin
This idea that time passes more slowly when you are moving faster is idiotic in the extreme. Velocity has absolutely nothing to do with the passage of time.
@FordPrefect23 Definitely not a Dutch accent (I'm Dutch). I'd say probably some Scandinavian country.
Amazing?
@truvelocity
As for peer review, it is not part of the scientific method, and has been shown empirically to have virtually no benefits, it only hinders publication of valid information that doesn't already have popular support. Peer review doesn't help eliminate errors, it reinforces common errors and biases. That said, there are many published, peer reviewed papers on plasma cosmology and the electric universe.
@fertilizerspike
I've Studied Mathematics and specialised in Physical-Technical Modelling, so I only take what's there and not really care how "real" it is. When applying a metric "on" the Einstein-Hilbert-Equation you are in fact bending space(time) in a mathematical sense. Otherwise every metric would be the same and the whole Equation would be useless.
So, again, purely Mathematically you are bending space(time). What actually happens, no one knows.
@truvelocity
There's nothing "mad" about human understanding of electricity. We generate electricity at will. Can you say that about gravity? We amplify electric fields readily. Can you say that about gravity? We can block and manipulate electric fields in many ways. Can any of this be said about gravity? What makes you think gravity is even a real force if we can't produce, amplify, block or manipulate it in any fashion? Use your head for a change. The universe is electric.
@BusinessIDBAI
You obviously don't understand the derivation of the word "troll", it comes from a fishing term, and this fish is way too big for you to catch. Troll on, troll, just remember to cut bait and cut your losses if you ever catch a shark.
@teemuruskeepaa If we're going to travel to nearby stars in the near future then it's a good bet that fusion will be used as power source (not cold fusion). And science fiction is just that, fiction. And as for FTL; it's not as simple as just acellerating past the speed of light.
@Valkes
What the studies you refer to show is that a "z pinch" is sustainable as long as the current is sustained. Plasma instabilities, interestingly, mirror precisely the morphology we observe in galaxies. As I've stated before, "z pinches" are capable of fusion. The ONLY fusion likely to be taking place on stars is at the surface, a result of the "z pinch" effect. Your education in this field is clearly lacking. Do some more research.
@truvelocity
I'm already familiar with this paper and the research of many other people into the "speed" of gravity. None of it is relevant to this current discussion, and all of it sidesteps the obvious virtual nature of gravity. We can not generate, amplify, block or manipulate this "force" in any fashion, which strongly suggests it is NOT REAL. Any attempts to quantify something that is IMAGINARY are doomed to failure and are pointless at the outset.
This researcher clearly knows almost nothing about stars. A star's color and temperature has absolutely nothing to do with its age. The spectra of stars is determined by one factor: electric current density at the surface. Stars are electrically driven.
@Kossimer
If you talk about the self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion model, you are talking about fairy tales. Also, speak only for yourself. You don't know why all the subscribers to this channel have subscribed. Maybe some of them just like the pretty pictures.
@Valkes
I challenge you to study the "z pinch" effect and produce a succinct description of the phenomenon in this comments section before I will reply to you any further. I am familiar with all your claims and the evidence you cite in your attempts to support those claims. You are clearly not familiar with much of the evidence that supports many of the claims I've made. Prove to me you understand "z pinch" or I see no reason to continue discussing this with you.
@Valkes
First of all, everywhere in space that we've sent probes capable of detecting it, we've detected plasmas. Plasmas are ubiquitous in space, and by that I only mean they're everywhere, all the time. The universe is quite literally FILLED with plasma. That you don't know this is more testament to your extreme ignorance on this subject.
@truvelocity
This australian you mention, Wal Thornhill, actually has had his work reviewed by peers, peers such as Dave Talbott, Don Scott and many others. Wal Thornhill's work is also a reflection of many previous researchers such as Juergens, Perratt, Birkeland, Alfven and many, many others.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, and have apparently just been reading libelous claims about Wal Thornhill and think you know more than you do.
@Valkes
Stellar fusion has been falsified many times over and never adequately explained any features of the sun that we observe. The opposite is true of electric star models. Not only do they reasonably explain what we've observed without ad hoc additions that defy known physics, they are also predictive. The list of successful predictions of the electric star model is long and impressive. Do some research.
@fertilizerspike I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you actually believe this, so I don't. Go troll somewhere else. People subscribed to this channel like to talk about science, not fairy-tales.
@julsHz
Just because you memorized a bunch of implausible fables doesn't mean you're an astronomer. If you doubt the claims I've made, in light of the evidence, you have no business calling yourself an astronomer. You reject the scientific method, so you are an astronoger, like an astrologer, but less useful. The electric universe has the best record of any cosmological paradigm at explaining observed reality and for predicting new discoveries.
@Valkes
You deny evidence even when it's put right in front of your face. Astonishing. What is it about the absorptions lines of which star do you want me to "account for"? Your challenge here is so vague it approaches meaninglessness. Electric discharges and electric ionization of matter is readily capable of producing ALL the observed spectral lines of, for example, IRON, and iron's spectral lines number in the THOUSANDS. It isn't "heat" that ionizes matter, it is electric fields.
@Valkes he has to go back to his conspiracy web site and copy and paste what he claims are his contentions and assertions. They don't belong to him! He's a troll! Get over it.
@julsHz
If you think you can refute any of my claims with verifiable evidence and sound reason, feel free to do so. I haven't seen you so much as attempt that, so far. All you've done is recite the fables you memorized and cite consensus of beliefs. Well guess what, the consensus of beliefs suggests that deities exist. Do you believe in gods? Are you a creationist? I'm not. I only believe what can be verified by empirical referent and experiment.
@fertilizerspike Remain silent! Bwahahahahaha! Mad scientific theories about electric stars, buahahahaha... Universe is full of plasma, everywhere, buahahahha. Now, lets make an electric plasma lamp and tell everyone that gravity is insignificant and cannot cause enough mass for fusion to exist. Just a light switch to turn stars on and off. No, its not solar wind, its... Its.... electricity.