'Crown of Thorns' Galaxy Photographed in Space

[underpants]

Source: Fox News


NASA, ESA and W. Harris (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada)

A new Hubble image highlights striking swirling dust lanes and glittering globular clusters in oddball galaxy.

An unusual large galaxy with a shape bordering between spiral and elliptical has been spotted by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.

NGC 7049 sits in the southern constellation Indus, and is the brightest of a cluster of galaxies, a so-called Brightest Cluster Galaxy (BCG). Typical BCGs are some of the oldest and most massive galaxies, which provide excellent opportunities for astronomers to study the elusive globular clusters lurking within.

The halo, a ghostly region of diffuse light surrounding the galaxy, is composed of myriads of individual stars and provides a luminous background to the swirling ring of dust lanes surrounding NGC 7049's core.

Hubble captured this image using its Advanced Camera for Surveys, which is primed to hunt galaxies and galaxy clusters in the remote and ancient universe. The space telescope recently imaged a group of colliding galaxies chosen in an online voting contest.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513038,00.html

---

Hubble's photo of Arp 274, the winner of a public contest to decide the space telescope's target for the International Year of Astronomy's "100 Hours of Astronomy" project. NASA, ESA, M. Livio and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

[polichick]

1. Cool photos! Amazing how much we can see now.

[panzerfaust]

35. And how much more we could see if not blinded

by ancient and ignorant superstition.


The Sun Eater: January 26, 2009 (Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi - or just another day on planet Earth, another moment in the universe?)

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

2. Most Beautiful!

[pleah]

3. K&R#5 Love the pics!

[kpete]

4. wow

!!!

[borelord]

5. Anyone know where to find the original image?

It would make a sweet desktop if I could find it larger.

[CrispyQ]

6. Try here:

http://hubblesite.org/

I love the Hubble!

[borelord]

7. :D

thanks!

[FloridaJudy]

10. Also try the NASA website

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/

There are some seriously cool pictures there.

[thelefthand]

13. Astronomy Picture of the Day

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

[Wizard777]

8. This goes quite well with what I call the Jesus Nebula.

Hubble has a photo of a Nebula. At the proper distance it appears to be the silhouette of a bearded man in a robe or what many would call Jesus. But I also realize that this is matrixing under the power of suggestion. Because others don't see this until I point it out. Then it becomes unshakable. They can't go back to seeing it as just a cloud in outer space. This is because I have provided their mind with a means of identifying and otherwise unidentifiable pattern. You can retrain the pattern identification to re-identify the pattern. But you can't ever go back to blank.

[Wizard777]

12. One other thought. What if the story of Jesus was actually a Celestial Saga like the Pantheons?

What if the stories were based on astronomical and astrological events instead of human events. Much like the tales from the Greek and Roman pantheons were based on Celestial objects and their events. Remember that the birth of Jesus coincided with the birth of a new star. Enter the Magi who were known astronomers and astrologers. They weave the Celestial Saga of Jesus that is now viewed as a human event. With the death and resurrection of Jesus being a three day eclipse of the Star. Now we've discovered or rediscovered the thorny crown from the Crucifixion. Wow this hypothesis is blowing my mind. Suddenly I feel like singing, Jesus Christ Superstar have we just discovered what you really are? Now I'll have to reread the Gnostic Book of Judas. In which Jesus reveals the Heavens to Judas shortly before Judas reveals the location of Jesus to the Romans. Wow!

[CrispyQ]

14. Is this the nebula you mean?

Looks like a jellyfish on top of a lava lamp to me. ;)

Remember Magic Eyes? I loved those things. Our Sunday paper use to have one on the front page of the comics. Some of the more difficult ones wouldn't easily 'pop,' even if you had seen them before.

[sofa king]

Oh, I know that one.

With the use of gravitational lensing, astronomers have managed to determine that it is not in fact Jesus, but Jack Black portraying Jesus in the Proposition 8 video.

[CrispyQ]

22. I now see Jack Black in one of those white powdered wigs of the old English courts!

;)

Thanks for the video link. I hadn't seen that. :thumbsup:

[Synicus Maximus]

29. Why not stick with real beauty instead of bullshit photoshop.

[panzerfaust]

37. Here you go ...

(Though - without someone photoshopping - I cannot really see the witch, anymore than I could see the jesus)

[Blue_Tires]

23. whatever that is, i don't see jesus

[Wizard777]

25. Exactly! Those also work on matrixing under power of suggestion.

You'll never see anything thing in those without first being told what to look for. But in Celestial Saga's the definition and clarity of the symbols really isn't important. When it comes to the stars. Sure I can see the big dipper and the little dipper. But Constellations leave me scratching my head. I just don't see it. I just don't know how they arrive at Sagittarius. What are the rules for connecting the dots? How do they attach a number or letter to the stars to ensure the dots are connected in the right order? Apparently most books on dot connecting seems to think this is an important part of the dot connecting process. Just check your local toy store if you don't believe me. :rofl: So I digress, the clarity of the symbol in the Celestial Saga is not important. It doesn't have to be a Xerox or Photograph. A vague semblance will suffice.

[tomm2thumbs]

9. when I see pics like this, I picture myself as tiny tadpole in a huge lake- breathtaking

I better not think about the size of the galaxy too much as I have heard that others have gone insane doing that! :)

[redqueen]

11. Gorgeous.

Thanks for posting this.

[bvar22]

15. Stunning.

!

[roguevalley]

26. it truly is. how awesome.

[acmavm]

16. Absolutely beautiful.

[NoodleyAppendage]

17. Yeah, yeah...it's close to Easter, so let's find all of the patterns in nature shall we. Shesh...

It figures that this news trival would come from Faux News in their attempt to curry favor with the IDIOTS who believe in a cloud being and for whom science is to be distrusted. It could just as well be that the galaxy in question looks like a bale of barbed wire, but that wouldn't turn on the Faux, dumbass readership.

J

[panzerfaust]

36. The real meaning of Easter

Arkive: Images of life on earth.

[defendandprotect]

18. Someone imitating Van Gogh . . . ???

Beautiful . . .!!!

[defendandprotect]

19. Odd naming by NASA, however . . .

Look like a diaphram to anyone else?

[grace0418]

20. Very cool, but I guarantee it will be on my in-laws fridge next time we visit. The only time science

interests them is when things "look" like some religious imagery. :eyes:

[RebelOne]

21. I don't know who wrote that, but "myriads" is incorrect grammar.

"is composed of myriads of individual stars"

[panzerfaust]

31. How So?

Merriam-Webster notes, "Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective.... however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myriad

Of course, I actually do not know what the diff between a noun and an adjective might be - but "myriads" seems to be legitimately used in the plural in the quoted sentence to me: "is composed of {tens-of-thousands} of individual stars.

"Myriad" originally meant "ten thousand", more often now an "indefinitely large number."

Taking myriad in the original meaning, and thus singular, "is composed of {ten thousand} of individual stars" works not at all well (there being many more than a myriad -ten thousand- stars in the image), though the phrase "is composed of {an indefinitely large number} of individual stars", using the newer meaning, does work well.

In short, WHAT is incorrect about "myriads" ...

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

24. Web site: The Best of the Hubble Space Telescope

http://www.seds.org/hst/hst.html

Interesting that this one isn't there yet. I can't wait to see a hi-rez version of it.

What an absolutely incredible universe we live in- or will until we destroy ourselves in our microscopic pettiness.

[Doctor_J]

27. Nice pics. Stop linking to Fox News

[underpants]

30. but it gives me cold comfort in a time great social and economic upheaval

plus they have an ongoing "Cougar vs. young hottie" storyline going on that I monitor religiously

[Zhade]

28. It's just human pattern recognition, folks. Doesn't mean the myth is real.

Sigh.

[panzerfaust]

32. But ... but ... It MUST be!

Surely it is as real as the face on Mars!!

Refute THIS. Clearly the work of Ancient Astronauts ...

[Fumesucker]

33. Here is a bit bigger version I downloaded and enlarged some more..

[panzerfaust]

34. APOD: Every Day

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/


Comet Lulin (what, you missed it?) and Saturn February 2009

APOD is where I start every day on the Web ...