Comments on: Hubble Image of the Colliding Antennae Galaxies (with Video) http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/ Space and astronomy news Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:17:24 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Sakib http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-21298 Sakib Thu, 22 May 2008 12:11:00 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-21298 The picture on the left is by Rob Gendler with a 14 inch scope! Check out http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/NGC4038AU.html Wonder what the image on the right would look like with ACS? The picture on the left is by Rob Gendler with a 14 inch scope! Check out http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/NGC4038AU.html

Wonder what the image on the right would look like with ACS?

]]> By: Ignoramus http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20241 Ignoramus Mon, 12 May 2008 13:45:25 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20241 Yes the 65 LY's distance was based on redshift. Quote fm Science "The most widely quoted distance to the Antennae is ∼ 20 Mpc, based on the recession velocity of the system corrected with the flow model of Tonry et al. (2000). Even bigger question: What gives? Yes the 65 LY's distance was based on redshift.
Quote fm Science "The most widely quoted distance to the Antennae is ∼ 20 Mpc, based on the recession velocity of the system corrected with the flow model of Tonry et al. (2000).
Even bigger question: What gives?

]]> By: Ignoramus http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20238 Ignoramus Mon, 12 May 2008 13:22:25 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20238 In Fraser's article dated Jan 4,2004 "Chandra Sees Colliding Galaxies" the ditance is quoted as 30 million LY's.What gives? In Fraser's article dated Jan 4,2004 "Chandra Sees Colliding Galaxies" the ditance is quoted as 30 million LY's.What gives?

]]> By: Brad http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20230 Brad Mon, 12 May 2008 03:11:24 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20230 You need an obsession 18 mate! You need an obsession 18 mate!

]]> By: marcellus http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20206 marcellus Sun, 11 May 2008 15:11:45 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20206 I've observsed and journaled these two galaxies form my Herschel 400 search. I have to admit, this is a little more impressive than what they look like through a Celestron 8" SCT! I've observsed and journaled these two galaxies form my Herschel 400 search. I have to admit, this is a little more impressive than what they look like through a Celestron 8" SCT!

]]> By: Tony Iallonardo http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20192 Tony Iallonardo Sun, 11 May 2008 04:29:31 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20192 Cepheid Variable stars ... Type 1A Supernovae ... each has certain characteristic properties that make them reliable standard candles ...... check them out Cepheid Variable stars … Type 1A Supernovae … each has certain characteristic properties that make them reliable standard candles …… check them out

]]> By: vag http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20147 vag Sat, 10 May 2008 11:45:15 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20147 Notice gravitational lensing just above the bottom right in the inset image? Notice gravitational lensing just above the bottom right in the inset image?

]]> By: Dave http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/09/hubble-image-of-the-colliding-antennae-galaxies-with-video/comment-page-1/#comment-20078 Dave Fri, 09 May 2008 20:02:51 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=14197#comment-20078 Well now, lesseee. The previous distance estimages were based on what, red-shift? This appears to be another example of red-shift being a pretty poor method of predicting distance. Unless of course the prior distance estimate was based on something other than red-shift, the article doesn't say but what else is there? Well now, lesseee. The previous distance estimages were based on what, red-shift? This appears to be another example of red-shift being a pretty poor method of predicting distance. Unless of course the prior distance estimate was based on something other than red-shift, the article doesn't say but what else is there?

]]>