Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote:I used to write songs from time to time for the Shakespeare group but that was only after my 10,000th post.

Until then I'll just leave you with these:

neufer wrote:From a songwriter's perspective "Luna" is totally unacceptable

owlice wrote:neufer, pray tell, have you been writing songs? If so, please share!!

rstevenson wrote:

owlice wrote:

Stevie wrote:p.s. The 1st question I was asked to post this said what "Name" is the natural satellite orbiting earth. I said "Lunar" ...which I thought is the correct name for the moon... grrr I thought it was a trick question... So our moon is called moon?? It's like calling a pet Dog "Dog" or giving your new child the name "Human". ...doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Luna would have been an acceptable answer. "Lunar" is the adjective form: lunar rocks, lunar surface.

The Moon's proper name (in English) is "Moon". "Luna" is Latin (and other languages derived from Latin) for "moon".

Stevie wrote:All the discussion here seem to be missing somthing I'm seeing in the image. That small galaxy jsut behind the Tadpole, with it's jet comming out of the centre doesn't look right. Jet's coming out of black hole normally go straight, at least thats how they appear in most other photo's.

Stevie wrote:p.s. The 1st question I was asked to post this said what "Name" is the natural satellite orbiting earth. I said "Lunar" ...which I thought is the correct name for the moon... grrr I thought it was a trick question... So our moon is called moon?? It's like calling a pet Dog "Dog" or giving your new child the name "Human". ...doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

wagoneer4x4 wrote:
i wish apod would stop using the term "mere" in almost every reference to large astronomical distances.
it stopped being amusing awhile back.

• 1) close foreground objects (versus more distant background objects)
  
  or 2) the nearest of neighboring stars, pulsars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc..

• 1) the cosmic tadpole {A MERE 420 million light-years distant (2010 September 26)}
  
  or 2) the "bullet cluster" {A MERE 3.4 billion light-years away (2008 August 23)}

• And it's old and old it's sad and old it's sad and weary I go back to you, my cold father, my cold mad father, my cold mad feary father, till the near sight of the MERE size of him, the moyles and moyles of it, moananoaning, makes me seasilt saltsick...
  - Finnegans Wake (last page)

Ann wrote:
Ketarax, it could be a star stream.
See this image of NGC 4651 for comparison

ketarax wrote:It's a striking image. Any idea if the nebulosity that seems to be centered and normal to the galactic plane of the largest background galaxy is a jet of some sort, or another gravitational tail / stream ?

Ann wrote:

ketarax wrote:

xanthoptica wrote:
Given that they are more distant objects, I wonder: are we actually seeing redshift in the visible spectrum of these distant objects? Anybody know?

I've seen that explanation in a caption once or many times, but I'm not qualified to confirm it's the correct one. Perhaps we're seeing the combined effect of redshift and stellar makeup of those early galaxies. In any case, I'm not aware of any relatively close galaxies that appear quite as red.

Yes, the very reddest objects are all reddened by redshift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_%28astronomy%29 wrote:

Average extinction curves for the MW, LMC2, LMC, & SMC Bar. The curves are plotted versus 1/wavelength to emphasize the UV.

---

neufer wrote:Just how exactly do you know about my trademarked dimpled smile

bystander wrote:

neufer wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Ann_Nivens

Although apparently charming and sweet, Sue Ann was really sardonic, and very, very competitive.

Always with her trademarked dimpled smile, she was cruel and snide toward people she did not like or felt threatened by.

Maybe a little Sue Ann in you?

ketarax wrote:

xanthoptica wrote:Given that they are more distant objects, I wonder: are we actually seeing redshift in the visible spectrum of these distant objects? Anybody know?

I've seen that explanation in a caption once or many times, but I'm not qualified to confirm it's the correct one. Perhaps we're seeing the combined effect of redshift and stellar makeup of those early galaxies. In any case, I'm not aware of any relatively close galaxies that appear quite as red.

xanthoptica wrote:Given that they are more distant objects, I wonder: are we actually seeing redshift in the visible spectrum of these distant objects? Anybody know?

neufer wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Ann_Nivens

Although apparently charming and sweet, Sue Ann was really sardonic, and very, very competitive. Always with her trademarked dimpled smile, she was cruel and snide toward people she did not like or felt threatened by.

bystander wrote:

ketarax wrote: This is certainly a valid point, however, it doesn't apply universally to everything we call jets, c.f. Messier 87.

Are you saying the M87 jet is not a particle stream?

ketarax wrote:

neufer wrote:2) Jets are made up of particles radiating strongly in radio in x-rays NOT of stars & dust.

This is certainly a valid point, however, it doesn't apply universally to everything we call jets, c.f. Messier 87.

Ann wrote:
So I was wrong. Sue me!

Except I'm a girl. And I'm not named Sue.
Ann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Ann_Nivens wrote:
<<Sue Ann Nivens was a fictional character on the long-running TV situation comedy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show. She was played by television perennial Betty White. A forerunner of Martha Stewart, Sue Ann Nivens was the relentlessly perky star of "The Happy Homemaker", on Mary Richards' fictional WJM-TV, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her show had unusual and sometimes ludicrous themes such as "What's all this fuss about famine?" and "A salute to fruit". Like Stewart, she was a perfectionist; she once confessed she would rather flush her Veal Prince Orloff down a toilet than serve it reheated. She was also consumed with helpful hints for all occasions and always ready to make lemons into lemonade; she once suggested buying colorful, happy goldfish as companions for the infirm and then, when the goldfish died, using them as fertilizer for houseplants.>>

neufer wrote:

Ann wrote:I believe it is a jet, but it could be a tidal tail too.

Oh, Ann, Ann, Ann.

1) Jets shoot perpendicularly out of the center of galaxies not tangentially out of their arms
and they usually have counter jets shooting out the opposite direction.
3) "The intruder galaxy itself can be seen through foreground spiral arms at the lower left."

2) Jets are made up of particles radiating strongly in radio in x-rays NOT of stars & dust.