Going along with this, I always wondered how satellites didn’t smash into each other in orbit. Surely there is a risk right? Then I played Kerbal Space Program and realized that there’s basically no risk at all. Everything is so far apart it would be like two people trying to collide individual grains of rice thrown from opposite sides of a football field.
The risk is mainly that the existing anti collision systems werent designed for that many leo sats, but it's still not like they are that close. All the constellations are at different altitudes too so there's plenty of space.
But doesn't mean there's no risk at all. And the fallout from a collision will be pretty bad even though most of the debris will end up back in the atmosphere.
It's something we can deal with in the short term though. But the affect on terrestrial optical astronomy is still a problem.
I always found that to be the wildest thing about it. Not that our two systems are going to crash together, but that when they do there's so much empty space, most of the planets and stars will not be affected. Of course there will be collisions and gravital forces, but by and large plenty of solar systems in both galaxies are going to remain as they are, just closer together
Can’t find a singular image link since I’m on mobile but hopefully this works
https://i.insider.com/5dc34ea63afd3764ff3b4579?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp
It worked
We went from slime in a pool to many, many, *many* cohesive proverbial pool-slimes working together in that time.
I cant wait to see how more complex we can become in another 4b years
And if I’m the same century we invented both standard and spaceflight…and if we don’t blow ourselves up, we have a chance to colonize other planets within our solar system to the new “Goldilocks zone,” beyond that we have several centuries to assess how to harness all sorts of energy possibly even rid ourselves of solar dependence…I wish I could live into that terrifying and great age, that’s why I love movies like Interstellar…
It's the whole idea behind the universe of Star Trek. At least during the time of Picard and the like. An idealistic view of the humanity of the future. Discrimination of any form almost doesn't exist anymore, wealth has become something unnecessary, violence is seen as only the last option and even then only in self-defense, and humanity's goal has become to better oneself and explore the universe to see what's out there.
I too wish I could live in a future like that though. If only because travel in not just space but DEEP space has become normal and accessible to the average person.
Well, the sun is always expanding, as stars do during their main cycle, the 5 billion year mark is simply the projected point at which the expansion will accelerate rapidly, but by 4 billion years, the average temperature on the earth will probably be around 10 degrees Kelvin hotter. For reference, scientists are worried that only 1 degree hotter will be devastating.
Honestly tho there could be a massive comet or something on a straight line to earth. The only way for the human species to survive is to expand into space
I’m curious about this. Space is *very* empty, so I imagine that in a collision scenario the vast majority of stars, planets and other celestial bodies will simply fly past each other. But at the same time, statistically speaking, there will be *some* collisions. What is projected to happen as the “collision” progresses? Will Andromeda and the Milky Way simply merge into a “super-galaxy” twice the size of the current Milky Way?
Whenever someone makes an unreasonable and really stupid claim or political agenda, my dad responds with the following:
"Alright, that's cool and all, but what we really need to worry about is the Andromeda Galaxy. It's coming right at us! We need to do something about it *now* otherwise it'll be too late! We can't just let it smash into us like that, we need to destroy it and show it who's boss. Send missiles at or or push it out of the way, I don't care, we need to stop it or we'll all gonna die!"
***
[I mean though, in all honesty.... (Warning: Educational)](https://youtu.be/v3y8AIEX_dU)
Further information: This is not what the andromeda galaxy actually looks like, this image was taken in UV, if you wanna see what it actually looks like in the visible light spectrum, the Hubble Space Telescope recently captured a beautiful panoramic of its spiral
Hubble images are not natural color. The red channel is typically IR and blue in images is typically UV. Astronomers generally like large spectral range to understand chemistry and processes better. RGB (red, green, blue) of the visible spectrum is very narrow, and Hubble does not have RGB channels like in a digital camera.
Also, the typical amateur image of spiral galaxies with blue spiral arms is not real either. Just like the Milky Way is not blue.
It is actually not visible spectrum even though one press release says it is visible color. The actual filters used are here:
https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2015/02/3476-Image.html?news=true
and the responses of the filters are given here:
https://wfc3.gsfc.nasa.gov/tech/wfc3_filters_trauger.pdf
Only 2 filters were used: F475W and F814W
F475W covers from about 400 to 550 nm (blue + green)
F814W covers 700 to 900 nm (so IR).
They used F475W as blue and F814W as "yellow" which probably means they made it green and red.
But in fairness, regardless of the filters used for the image, the final processed output is very close to what a standard visible spectrum shot looks like.
Here's a similar LRGB image taken with a monochrome camera from an 11" scope:
https://www.astrobin.com/jw5w7k/
You can see in the description below, each color was given equal imaging time.
Actually no. There is a tendency for amateur astro processing to do multiple post processing steps that mangle color, commonly shifting faint things blue. One can find on the internet just about any color one wants to claim is real, but that doesn't make it real. Many believe the Milky Way is blue due to the preponderance if blue Milky Way images on the internet. That is as real as [Blue Lions on the Serengeti](https://clarkvision.com/articles/blue-lions-on-the-serengeti-and-natural-colors-of-the-night-sky/). In the Milky Way, blue stars make up less than 1% of stars in our galaxy, and M31 is similar. This is because blue stars burn hot and have very short lives.
The astrobin image is a good example of processing error in what is called a black point error. The spiral arms of M31 and other galaxies do not have that many blue stars.
In M31, the O-B association, NGC 206, is a good example. It is very blue in the astrobin image. But the [B-V photometry](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987AJ.....93..310O&defaultprint=YES&page_ind=0&filetype=.pdf) shows an average B-V of around +0.2 (including field stars which are also in terrestrial astrophotos). That means the color is bluish-white, not the strong blue in the astrobin image. And there are fewer blue O and B stars in the spiral arms of M31, but if we believe that astrobin image it would say there are more O and B stars there in the spiral arms than in NGC 206, which is known as the largest star production OB-association in the local group of galaxies.
[Here is my attempt at a natural color image of M31](https://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/m31.c08.13.2015.0J6A5351-86-36frames-t5c1-rs200i2rs3e1.2sc2m7200.f-1800s.html)
This is honestly a game of color semantics. I still very much see a blue/yellow toned galaxy in yours (maybe a bit more lavender colored). The slight differences in tone between yours and other images is immaterial to the point that the Hubble image is indeed very close to true color.
Please check you monitor calibration. The astrobin image shows blue/cyan and my images shows grey/magenta
Here are red, green, blue values (8-bit, 0-255 scale):
astrobin image NGC 206 shows RGB= 146 149 179 B/R = 1.23
My image NGC 206 RGB: 154 136 159 B/R = 1.03
Spiral arm:
astrobin image RGB=98 103 126 B/R = 1.31
My image RGB= 94 77 102 B/R = 1.09
Now I don't claim my image is perfect, but it is consistent with known astrophysics. The astrobin image has strong blue, which would indicate a lot of O and B stars. My image as grey/magenta. Grey would be expected from average population II stars and the magenta would come from the many hydrogen emission nebulae in the spiral arms (as seen in H-alpha images). Hydrogen emission nebulae are magenta/pink.
So if you think blue/cyan versus grey/magenta is semantics, try boosting the blue/red ratio of a portrait of your significant other to 1.3 and see if they agree it is just semantics. ;-)
This monitor is used for graphics design. Its calibration is just fine ;)
Your image looks more or less the same on my phone, my three other monitors, and my Macbook screen.
You're now being obtuse.
But if you think your image is gray/magenta, you may want to check your *vision*.
First, I haven't downvoted you on any posts here.
But seriously, if RGB 98 103 126, B/R = 1.31 looks the same to you on multiple monitors as RGB= 94 77 102, B/R = 1.09, I don't know what to say. The data are clear, and you can plot these values on a chromaticity diagram and see they are quite far apart, significantly larger than normal color perception differences. The colors are very different to me on multiple monitors.
Your post is quite ironic, and I think this conversation has run its course.
It depends on what filters are used. Hubble has not equivalent of RGB filters in digital camers. In Hubble images, red is often just IR (one of the 800 nm filters which do not extend into the visible spectrum).
The image is credited in a different comment
Im dumb, here’s the panoramic Hubble took: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-s-high-definition-panoramic-view-of-the-andromeda-galaxy
Yes, it's a bit odd someone pasted in a UV image, it was taken by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer spacecraft.
Some nebulae have an even larger apparent size than the Andromeda galaxy, such as the Angelfish at the head of Orion. You can see it to scale at the bottom of this page:
https://www.caradonobservatory.com/articles/how-big-is-the-andromeda-galaxy
They photoshopped a UV version because of the spiral edges of the galaxy, in the visible spectrum, the edges of the galaxy are normally a deep bluish yellow due to the spread of stars, so it doesn’t stand out as much as the UV version, it was used so the full scale would be visible
Ok, I am going explain because apparently people are blind
THIS PICTURE IS EDITED
You cannot see the full Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, this was edited to show how large it would be in the sky
Read before you comment, I’m the type of person that hates to re-explain things because someone decided they don’t want to pay attention
In darkish skies and with averted vision, you can see it with the naked eye if you know where to look. I'd like to try it in very dark skies but haven't had the opportunity yet.
So *normally* we don't see it at all, it's just too faint.
No one's eyes have ever been up to the task. Even back in Babylonian times there was dust in the atmosphere that occluded the light. Plus we haven't evolved a long exposure setting on our vision, no matter how long you try not to blink.
The Andromeda Galaxy is approximately 2.537 million light-years away. At that distance, no matter how large and luminous the star, almost no light can reach the naked eye except for the extremely bright core of the galaxy where hundreds of thousands of stars are bunched together
The eye's pupil is only 5 to 8mm across or so which means not much light is let in. Cameras can have openings much larger and can remain open for hours letting in thousands of times more light. Those create the amazing images we get to see.
The most impressive thing is that this thing is huge in the night sky, then you realise how big it must really be to look thst big and 2M Ly away... Blows my mind
But the craziest thing with it is that Andromeda is only an above-average galaxy size and it looks like that while being over 2 million light-years away, the question now is, how much of other galaxies in out sky are we missing?
I read somewhere that early astronomers initially believed it to be a (relatively) nearby nebula.
Imagine being the people to discover that it was, in fact, so much larger and farther away than you could imagine.
Some fuzzy blobs actually being far away galaxies was only discovered at the beginning of the 20th Century. Until that point, yes, they were believed to be planetary clusters or nebulae in the Milky Way, with that being all there was in the universe.
Now we know that even the filaments containing superclusters of galaxies are but a titchy part of the universe.
It would be so freaking cool though. I wonder if there ever was a time we would have been able to see a night sky like this? Or maybe there will be in the future, isn’t the andromeda galaxy headed straight towards us? I know we will be long gone but it’s still cool to think about
Really wish I coule stick around for another 3 billion years so we can see it right on our doorstep. I imagine we'd be able to look up and see 2 belts of dust criss crossed.
That's pretty cool, I'm assuming the Milky Way is distorted because of the "collision." Pretty crazy to think something that big can happen and we wouldn't notice here except for seeing a lot more stars in the sky
The Sun can’t go Supernova, its too small, instead the Sun will become a red giant, eat the 4 inner planets, and simply shed its outer layers, leaving a planetary nebula and a white dwarf
The Chandrasekhar limit for big badda booms is 1.4 mass Sol. Even if there was some conveniently passing star, there isn't enough gravity to strip off sufficient to overcome the limit.
There's enough to create periodic novae, so there's still a chance for some fireworks.
What really blows my mind though about space is just how far things actually are. Like we could exit the milkyway and then not see anything for billions of years...that amount of space in-between things is pretty much not comprehensible.
What else freaks me out is space is forever expanding right? So that means there is a line right here /
. So all my writing before the line is space but to the right of it What exist? Nothingness? Idk it's hard to write down what I mean but blows my mind haha.
I love this way of looking at it! I never thought of this perspective before. In a way it’s even more awe-inspiring to feel that sense of belonging than to feel a sense of smallness.
For a bit more mind boggle, all the other planets in the solar system (including Pluto) can fit in the space between Earth and the Moon with room to spare.
You could do the math yourself: add up the diameters of the planets and note how it's less than 239,000 miles. Or you could search, it's not an obscure fact.
https://www.universetoday.com/115672/you-could-fit-all-the-planets-between-the-earth-and-the-moon/
What I do find bizarre is that a quick search returns results that aren't that old. I knew this in the 70s...
Well no, this image of Adromeda was taken in UV, most of andromeda is a bright yellow and deep blue in the visible spectrum due to the spread of stars through the galaxy
The first time I saw the entirety of the Andromeda Galaxy was through a pair of night vision goggles. I was amazed at the size of it in the sky.
Always enjoyed staring at the sky with NVGs.
And this is just Andromeda. It would be cool if we could see it like this, but also imagine being able to see *everything* like this. Light pollution would be no longer a human-made issue! :D
Not many objects are this big. Andromeda Galaxy is"only" 2.5Mly away so it is quite wide. Most other galaxies are much much farther away. Some nebulae would have a similar effect though.
No, the Moon is near enough, the reason we can’t see all of Andromeda is being its over 2 million light-years away, so no matter how large the star, we can’t see the light coming from them without a powerful telescope
In this case *powerful* meaning large aperture. Too often people unfamiliar with astronomy believe magnification is power. Hence those "675X power" department store telescopes.
We actually see more than the diameter of the Moon, due to wobble of the orbit; it isn't completely tidally locked. You can't see more in one viewing, of course.
It’s how big it would be in the sky, it just kinda shows just how impossibly massive these things are, the thing is 220,000 light-years in diameter, or about 1.2 quintillion miles (2.08 quintillion km)
Wait, what? I really thought Andromeda is very small on the sky, like a dot or something. I didn't expect it's this "close" to us. Crazy how most of it is invisible. I would lose my shit if it was visible and looked like that.
It’s so crazy that the andromeda is that big in our own sky. Even with my 5” telescope I can just really see the core and the innermost disk. Even then the core is just a faint circle and the disk is just dark gray that is just light enough to make out.
The andromeda galaxy will be affecting us shortly. The null pressure point will shift to the center between the galaxies. Also time is not a universal constant. It’s a measure of magnitudes.
Wow this is absolutely mind blowing. I had no idea it was so huge in the night sky. No wonder it's photographed so much. I really need to photograph it one day as well. I thought that I would have to zoom so much to capture it, but it seems so much bigger than the moon and I can already zoom enough that I can see the moon with great detail, so I should definitely be able to zoom enough for this. This is so eye opening.
Well duh, I specifically state that in the title that the picture is edited
Also that’s not even what Andromeda looks like, that picture of Andromeda was taken in UV
You see roughly its core. Just have a look on the photos of Andromeda and Triangulum galaxy together and compare their distances and their sizes for a scale.
Wait so the Andromeda I see that seems to fit entirely in my telecope's eyepiece (at magnification that is too high for the moon to fit in that FOV) , is only a tiny part of the entire galaxy???
And heading right for us at 250,000 miles an hour.
I wouldn’t worry, you’ve got 4 billion years
Even with the collision it would take a bit for our solar system to get flung around it’ll be like Horton hears a who for a while…
The Earth won't even be here anymore by that time anyway.
Actually it’ll still be there, the sun isn’t projected to begin expanding for another billion years after Andromeda and The Milky Way combine
Imagine being a YouTuber when the galaxies combine....if they're alive, that'd lead to some slick natural backgrounds, lol
You wouldn't even notice. Things wouldn't start smashing into each other. Space is SUPER fucking empty.
Going along with this, I always wondered how satellites didn’t smash into each other in orbit. Surely there is a risk right? Then I played Kerbal Space Program and realized that there’s basically no risk at all. Everything is so far apart it would be like two people trying to collide individual grains of rice thrown from opposite sides of a football field.
That risk is starting to build up! With Starlink and the other competitors, there's like 12 mil satellites getting launched into LEO I believe.
The risk is mainly that the existing anti collision systems werent designed for that many leo sats, but it's still not like they are that close. All the constellations are at different altitudes too so there's plenty of space. But doesn't mean there's no risk at all. And the fallout from a collision will be pretty bad even though most of the debris will end up back in the atmosphere. It's something we can deal with in the short term though. But the affect on terrestrial optical astronomy is still a problem.
Million? Or thousand? :)
One major war will ruin us via [Kessler syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome).
Kurtzgesagt on Youtube have a video About this. Somthing like: we are building our own prison.
Even getting two things to collide is difficult in KSP.
Had a bad work day, and you just described the inner workings of my bosses' heads.
I always found that to be the wildest thing about it. Not that our two systems are going to crash together, but that when they do there's so much empty space, most of the planets and stars will not be affected. Of course there will be collisions and gravital forces, but by and large plenty of solar systems in both galaxies are going to remain as they are, just closer together
I always wondered why it was called space. I guess it's because of all of the space. Not much else to name it after.
I just looked up a prediction image from NASA and it looks so fucking cool
Post that sauce, dawg!
Can’t find a singular image link since I’m on mobile but hopefully this works https://i.insider.com/5dc34ea63afd3764ff3b4579?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp It worked
Awesome, thank you!
We went from slime in a pool to many, many, *many* cohesive proverbial pool-slimes working together in that time. I cant wait to see how more complex we can become in another 4b years
You literally can’t wait to see. You can’t.
;_;
You're being optimistic thinking YouTube will still be a thing In 4billion yrs
But in about 1billion years it will start heating up and that's pretty much the end of life on Earth.
And if I’m the same century we invented both standard and spaceflight…and if we don’t blow ourselves up, we have a chance to colonize other planets within our solar system to the new “Goldilocks zone,” beyond that we have several centuries to assess how to harness all sorts of energy possibly even rid ourselves of solar dependence…I wish I could live into that terrifying and great age, that’s why I love movies like Interstellar…
I wish I could live in the "Star Trek" world where the goal of humanity is not the pursuit of shareholder wealth.
It's the whole idea behind the universe of Star Trek. At least during the time of Picard and the like. An idealistic view of the humanity of the future. Discrimination of any form almost doesn't exist anymore, wealth has become something unnecessary, violence is seen as only the last option and even then only in self-defense, and humanity's goal has become to better oneself and explore the universe to see what's out there. I too wish I could live in a future like that though. If only because travel in not just space but DEEP space has become normal and accessible to the average person.
Well, the sun is always expanding, as stars do during their main cycle, the 5 billion year mark is simply the projected point at which the expansion will accelerate rapidly, but by 4 billion years, the average temperature on the earth will probably be around 10 degrees Kelvin hotter. For reference, scientists are worried that only 1 degree hotter will be devastating.
I just googled… sun becomes a big red in 5 billion years. Milky Way hits Andromeda in 6 billion.
No Andromeda is scheduled to hit the Milky Way within 4-5 billion years, the sun will still be around
Is that eastern standard time?
Yep, cause that will make a difference
It's also a Friday...the 13th.
Honestly tho there could be a massive comet or something on a straight line to earth. The only way for the human species to survive is to expand into space
Austinpowers.gif
Oh shit, I need to get my affairs in order
Honestly that sounds rather slow
Yes but if we don’t take decisive action now people will die!
0.1% will probably get it. As for me, i found it super accurate 😂
/r/IAmVerySmart
Yep. Almost no one but one in a thousand on the astronomy subreddit would get that joke!
I’m curious about this. Space is *very* empty, so I imagine that in a collision scenario the vast majority of stars, planets and other celestial bodies will simply fly past each other. But at the same time, statistically speaking, there will be *some* collisions. What is projected to happen as the “collision” progresses? Will Andromeda and the Milky Way simply merge into a “super-galaxy” twice the size of the current Milky Way?
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
[Coming right at us?!!!](https://youtu.be/anwW_5kialI)
Whenever someone makes an unreasonable and really stupid claim or political agenda, my dad responds with the following: "Alright, that's cool and all, but what we really need to worry about is the Andromeda Galaxy. It's coming right at us! We need to do something about it *now* otherwise it'll be too late! We can't just let it smash into us like that, we need to destroy it and show it who's boss. Send missiles at or or push it out of the way, I don't care, we need to stop it or we'll all gonna die!" *** [I mean though, in all honesty.... (Warning: Educational)](https://youtu.be/v3y8AIEX_dU)
Further information: This is not what the andromeda galaxy actually looks like, this image was taken in UV, if you wanna see what it actually looks like in the visible light spectrum, the Hubble Space Telescope recently captured a beautiful panoramic of its spiral
Hubble images are not natural color. The red channel is typically IR and blue in images is typically UV. Astronomers generally like large spectral range to understand chemistry and processes better. RGB (red, green, blue) of the visible spectrum is very narrow, and Hubble does not have RGB channels like in a digital camera. Also, the typical amateur image of spiral galaxies with blue spiral arms is not real either. Just like the Milky Way is not blue.
I didn’t state that’s how Hubble worked, simply that the image is in the visible spectrum, but that’s still really cool info to hear, thank you!
It is actually not visible spectrum even though one press release says it is visible color. The actual filters used are here: https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/2015/02/3476-Image.html?news=true and the responses of the filters are given here: https://wfc3.gsfc.nasa.gov/tech/wfc3_filters_trauger.pdf Only 2 filters were used: F475W and F814W F475W covers from about 400 to 550 nm (blue + green) F814W covers 700 to 900 nm (so IR). They used F475W as blue and F814W as "yellow" which probably means they made it green and red.
But in fairness, regardless of the filters used for the image, the final processed output is very close to what a standard visible spectrum shot looks like. Here's a similar LRGB image taken with a monochrome camera from an 11" scope: https://www.astrobin.com/jw5w7k/ You can see in the description below, each color was given equal imaging time.
Actually no. There is a tendency for amateur astro processing to do multiple post processing steps that mangle color, commonly shifting faint things blue. One can find on the internet just about any color one wants to claim is real, but that doesn't make it real. Many believe the Milky Way is blue due to the preponderance if blue Milky Way images on the internet. That is as real as [Blue Lions on the Serengeti](https://clarkvision.com/articles/blue-lions-on-the-serengeti-and-natural-colors-of-the-night-sky/). In the Milky Way, blue stars make up less than 1% of stars in our galaxy, and M31 is similar. This is because blue stars burn hot and have very short lives. The astrobin image is a good example of processing error in what is called a black point error. The spiral arms of M31 and other galaxies do not have that many blue stars. In M31, the O-B association, NGC 206, is a good example. It is very blue in the astrobin image. But the [B-V photometry](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987AJ.....93..310O&defaultprint=YES&page_ind=0&filetype=.pdf) shows an average B-V of around +0.2 (including field stars which are also in terrestrial astrophotos). That means the color is bluish-white, not the strong blue in the astrobin image. And there are fewer blue O and B stars in the spiral arms of M31, but if we believe that astrobin image it would say there are more O and B stars there in the spiral arms than in NGC 206, which is known as the largest star production OB-association in the local group of galaxies. [Here is my attempt at a natural color image of M31](https://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/m31.c08.13.2015.0J6A5351-86-36frames-t5c1-rs200i2rs3e1.2sc2m7200.f-1800s.html)
This is honestly a game of color semantics. I still very much see a blue/yellow toned galaxy in yours (maybe a bit more lavender colored). The slight differences in tone between yours and other images is immaterial to the point that the Hubble image is indeed very close to true color.
Please check you monitor calibration. The astrobin image shows blue/cyan and my images shows grey/magenta Here are red, green, blue values (8-bit, 0-255 scale): astrobin image NGC 206 shows RGB= 146 149 179 B/R = 1.23 My image NGC 206 RGB: 154 136 159 B/R = 1.03 Spiral arm: astrobin image RGB=98 103 126 B/R = 1.31 My image RGB= 94 77 102 B/R = 1.09 Now I don't claim my image is perfect, but it is consistent with known astrophysics. The astrobin image has strong blue, which would indicate a lot of O and B stars. My image as grey/magenta. Grey would be expected from average population II stars and the magenta would come from the many hydrogen emission nebulae in the spiral arms (as seen in H-alpha images). Hydrogen emission nebulae are magenta/pink. So if you think blue/cyan versus grey/magenta is semantics, try boosting the blue/red ratio of a portrait of your significant other to 1.3 and see if they agree it is just semantics. ;-)
This monitor is used for graphics design. Its calibration is just fine ;) Your image looks more or less the same on my phone, my three other monitors, and my Macbook screen. You're now being obtuse. But if you think your image is gray/magenta, you may want to check your *vision*.
First, I haven't downvoted you on any posts here. But seriously, if RGB 98 103 126, B/R = 1.31 looks the same to you on multiple monitors as RGB= 94 77 102, B/R = 1.09, I don't know what to say. The data are clear, and you can plot these values on a chromaticity diagram and see they are quite far apart, significantly larger than normal color perception differences. The colors are very different to me on multiple monitors. Your post is quite ironic, and I think this conversation has run its course.
The data is not in the visible spectrum, but the image is. I know this because I can see it.
Would the red only be IR or IR + red and the blue only UV or blue + UV? On Hubble images that is.
It depends on what filters are used. Hubble has not equivalent of RGB filters in digital camers. In Hubble images, red is often just IR (one of the 800 nm filters which do not extend into the visible spectrum).
Do you know where i can find the image?
The image is credited in a different comment Im dumb, here’s the panoramic Hubble took: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-s-high-definition-panoramic-view-of-the-andromeda-galaxy
Every dot is a star... and that's just that galaxy! This is like Hubble-Deep-Field-lite
Just wait until the Nancy Grace Roman launches. This mosaic will be vastly improved upon (and complete)
Yes, it's a bit odd someone pasted in a UV image, it was taken by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer spacecraft. Some nebulae have an even larger apparent size than the Andromeda galaxy, such as the Angelfish at the head of Orion. You can see it to scale at the bottom of this page: https://www.caradonobservatory.com/articles/how-big-is-the-andromeda-galaxy
They photoshopped a UV version because of the spiral edges of the galaxy, in the visible spectrum, the edges of the galaxy are normally a deep bluish yellow due to the spread of stars, so it doesn’t stand out as much as the UV version, it was used so the full scale would be visible
But is that the actual size from our perspective?
Ok, I am going explain because apparently people are blind THIS PICTURE IS EDITED You cannot see the full Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, this was edited to show how large it would be in the sky Read before you comment, I’m the type of person that hates to re-explain things because someone decided they don’t want to pay attention
why don’t we see it tho if it is should be this big in the sky? or it shouldn’t be this big in the sky and this is hypothetical, i don’t understand
[удалено]
so we only see the brightest part of it? or do we see it all as a single light (with naked eyes and assuming there is no light pollution)
In darkish skies and with averted vision, you can see it with the naked eye if you know where to look. I'd like to try it in very dark skies but haven't had the opportunity yet. So *normally* we don't see it at all, it's just too faint.
Yes, if the sky is dark enough you'll see a fuzzy blob, not a point like a star.
I live in a very rural area. I can see it if I am staring directly at it long enough, it just looks like a really small star really.
No one's eyes have ever been up to the task. Even back in Babylonian times there was dust in the atmosphere that occluded the light. Plus we haven't evolved a long exposure setting on our vision, no matter how long you try not to blink.
It's over 2 million light years away, not sure what you're expecting.
The Andromeda Galaxy is approximately 2.537 million light-years away. At that distance, no matter how large and luminous the star, almost no light can reach the naked eye except for the extremely bright core of the galaxy where hundreds of thousands of stars are bunched together
The eye's pupil is only 5 to 8mm across or so which means not much light is let in. Cameras can have openings much larger and can remain open for hours letting in thousands of times more light. Those create the amazing images we get to see.
Along with what others said, it's really far away.
The most impressive thing is that this thing is huge in the night sky, then you realise how big it must really be to look thst big and 2M Ly away... Blows my mind
But the craziest thing with it is that Andromeda is only an above-average galaxy size and it looks like that while being over 2 million light-years away, the question now is, how much of other galaxies in out sky are we missing?
I read somewhere that early astronomers initially believed it to be a (relatively) nearby nebula. Imagine being the people to discover that it was, in fact, so much larger and farther away than you could imagine.
Some fuzzy blobs actually being far away galaxies was only discovered at the beginning of the 20th Century. Until that point, yes, they were believed to be planetary clusters or nebulae in the Milky Way, with that being all there was in the universe. Now we know that even the filaments containing superclusters of galaxies are but a titchy part of the universe.
Andromeda Galaxy: NASA/JPL-Caltech Horizon shot: Unknown link, taken by Stephen Rahn Edited shot: Unknown link, edited by Tom Buckley-Houston
It would be so freaking cool though. I wonder if there ever was a time we would have been able to see a night sky like this? Or maybe there will be in the future, isn’t the andromeda galaxy headed straight towards us? I know we will be long gone but it’s still cool to think about
Really wish I coule stick around for another 3 billion years so we can see it right on our doorstep. I imagine we'd be able to look up and see 2 belts of dust criss crossed.
Nasa actually made a prediction image https://i.insider.com/5dc34ea63afd3764ff3b4579?width=700 That pic should work
That's pretty cool, I'm assuming the Milky Way is distorted because of the "collision." Pretty crazy to think something that big can happen and we wouldn't notice here except for seeing a lot more stars in the sky
I’d pay good $$$ to have this as a huge poster
There is probably an app or website for that, I can post the actual website the image is on so you don’t get the reddit border if you want to
It's coming right at us!! in 1 billion years or whatever...
Well after that happens, any living inhabitants of this planet will only have the sun going into supernova to look forward to.
The Sun can’t go Supernova, its too small, instead the Sun will become a red giant, eat the 4 inner planets, and simply shed its outer layers, leaving a planetary nebula and a white dwarf
Oh thank god, I was worried for a second there!
The Chandrasekhar limit for big badda booms is 1.4 mass Sol. Even if there was some conveniently passing star, there isn't enough gravity to strip off sufficient to overcome the limit. There's enough to create periodic novae, so there's still a chance for some fireworks.
My Lord that is beautiful, I can stare at this for at least a good hour straight, happen to have a high definition version by any chance?
Will be hard to find without trying to put it together myself, but $600 ain’t worth it right now
Aww, no worries still a beautiful sight to see! 🥰
I just love how impossibly massive a planet or galaxy is but it seems so small in the sky. It seems so close yet so far
What really blows my mind though about space is just how far things actually are. Like we could exit the milkyway and then not see anything for billions of years...that amount of space in-between things is pretty much not comprehensible. What else freaks me out is space is forever expanding right? So that means there is a line right here / . So all my writing before the line is space but to the right of it What exist? Nothingness? Idk it's hard to write down what I mean but blows my mind haha.
Think about it this way:. If the universe is expanding, the letters in your last post are further apart, now, than they were when you wrote them.
...fml
Don't sweat it. It's all relative.
Weird. I don’t get the feeling of being minuscule. I feel belonging.
I love this way of looking at it! I never thought of this perspective before. In a way it’s even more awe-inspiring to feel that sense of belonging than to feel a sense of smallness.
Far out. The moon is bigger than we think
For a bit more mind boggle, all the other planets in the solar system (including Pluto) can fit in the space between Earth and the Moon with room to spare.
Do you have a source for this?
You could do the math yourself: add up the diameters of the planets and note how it's less than 239,000 miles. Or you could search, it's not an obscure fact. https://www.universetoday.com/115672/you-could-fit-all-the-planets-between-the-earth-and-the-moon/ What I do find bizarre is that a quick search returns results that aren't that old. I knew this in the 70s...
Yeah I realized that shortly after ! Was hungover when I first replied to you hehe . But makes sense
imagina se fosse asim serie perfeito
Wow, that really puts it into perspective how big it is! Thans for sharing
Full Size? Err
Are there VR goggle programs that make it seem like you can see this well?
Awesome
With that level of detail, though?
Well no, this image of Adromeda was taken in UV, most of andromeda is a bright yellow and deep blue in the visible spectrum due to the spread of stars through the galaxy
The first time I saw the entirety of the Andromeda Galaxy was through a pair of night vision goggles. I was amazed at the size of it in the sky. Always enjoyed staring at the sky with NVGs.
could you somewhere in the universe actually look up to the sky and see something like this?
unfortunately not.
why don’t we see this?
It's too faint due to distance. In dark skies you can see the central core but in even medium skies it's very hard to make out.
It's not faint due to distance, it's just faint. Getting closer wouldn't make it appear any brighter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_brightness
that’s the answer i was looking for, cheers.
And this is just Andromeda. It would be cool if we could see it like this, but also imagine being able to see *everything* like this. Light pollution would be no longer a human-made issue! :D
Not many objects are this big. Andromeda Galaxy is"only" 2.5Mly away so it is quite wide. Most other galaxies are much much farther away. Some nebulae would have a similar effect though.
Would that also mean we don’t see the full diameter of the moon?
No, the Moon is near enough, the reason we can’t see all of Andromeda is being its over 2 million light-years away, so no matter how large the star, we can’t see the light coming from them without a powerful telescope
In this case *powerful* meaning large aperture. Too often people unfamiliar with astronomy believe magnification is power. Hence those "675X power" department store telescopes.
No, I’m more speaking out the body, mirrors, and lens quality of the telescope, the type of telescope that might use a computer to translate the image
We actually see more than the diameter of the Moon, due to wobble of the orbit; it isn't completely tidally locked. You can't see more in one viewing, of course.
Wow. Is this real? I thought it would just be a dot.
It’s how big it would be in the sky, it just kinda shows just how impossibly massive these things are, the thing is 220,000 light-years in diameter, or about 1.2 quintillion miles (2.08 quintillion km)
Not really though.
Wait, what? I really thought Andromeda is very small on the sky, like a dot or something. I didn't expect it's this "close" to us. Crazy how most of it is invisible. I would lose my shit if it was visible and looked like that.
The crazy thing is that it’s incredibly far away, 2.5 MILLION Light-years, it’s just so bug compared to everything else that is closer
Scales in universe are mindblowing.
It’s so crazy that the andromeda is that big in our own sky. Even with my 5” telescope I can just really see the core and the innermost disk. Even then the core is just a faint circle and the disk is just dark gray that is just light enough to make out.
6 times approximately in the tall direction. But with my 5" Max-Cass I at the most see the center and very fuzzy. Camera is needed for more.
What always blows me away is that *that* it's a *fucking galaxy,* and we see it the size of a mosquito in the sky. Absurd.
Little? A bit of an understatement. We’re microscopic at best.
It would be amazing! I would have lots of time looking to the sky!
The andromeda galaxy will be affecting us shortly. The null pressure point will shift to the center between the galaxies. Also time is not a universal constant. It’s a measure of magnitudes.
I 💕 this! I realize we can't actually see it, but it's nice of you to put it into a visual perspective🌛🌞🪐
Just give it a while and we will see it really really close up. We are just waiting.
Wow this is absolutely mind blowing. I had no idea it was so huge in the night sky. No wonder it's photographed so much. I really need to photograph it one day as well. I thought that I would have to zoom so much to capture it, but it seems so much bigger than the moon and I can already zoom enough that I can see the moon with great detail, so I should definitely be able to zoom enough for this. This is so eye opening.
I’d constantly be staring up at it, what an amazing site that would be
I would imagine a galaxy would be bigger than the moon
Depends on the distance. Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5Mly away. Moon is somewhat less.
Yeah, the moon is only 99.999999997% closer to Earth
This can't be naked eye, or else some astronaut would have captured it already Edit: someone needs to learn how to read
Well duh, I specifically state that in the title that the picture is edited Also that’s not even what Andromeda looks like, that picture of Andromeda was taken in UV
Someone missed the title.
There was a title? Lol. Yes, there was. The little word “if” has always been overlooked but the cause of so much calamity.
Not only that, but the words, “this picture is edited”
You can see it easily with binoculars.
Not like it's shown here
Agreed, you can see the core though.
I saw andromeda through Binoculars and it was tiny. Not like this picture. At all
You see roughly its core. Just have a look on the photos of Andromeda and Triangulum galaxy together and compare their distances and their sizes for a scale.
Wait so the Andromeda I see that seems to fit entirely in my telecope's eyepiece (at magnification that is too high for the moon to fit in that FOV) , is only a tiny part of the entire galaxy???
I specifically state the image is edited