Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MalcolmY OP t1_iu757p1 wrote

These objects are so far away its impossible to view them from a different "angle". So why does Spitzer's image look like that?

60

manicdee33 t1_iu76xb4 wrote

Replying to MalcolmY (#303,004)

Wider field of view, different "up", older/worse sensors and looking at different wavelengths, and images processed differently meaning the various infrared wavelengths are mapped to different visible wavelengths.

18

TheFeshy t1_iu78bw2 wrote

Replying to MalcolmY (#303,004)

You're confusing parallax for rotation. Set something on your counter, and take a picture of it with your phone. If you walk four feet to the left, and take another picture, it will be at a different angle of parallax. That sort of transition would be impossible (or at least, incredibly small) given the nebula's great distance to us.

On the other hand, stand in one spot, and turn your phone on its side and snap another shot instead. Now you haven't moved relative to the object all, but your image is rotated.

100

the_fungible_man t1_iu790qa wrote

Relative to the rest of them, the Spitzer telescope image is:

  • Rotated about 60° counterclockwise.
  • A much wider field of view, making the "pillars" appear smaller.
  • Lower contrast.
  • Lower resolution.

They probably should've just left it out of the GIF.

412

ItchyK t1_iu794cs wrote

Yeah, edibles just kicking in and now you got me thinking. I guess there's really no correct orientation for these images. Just what we arbitrarily delineate as being the correct orientation. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the images of this that we're seeing are crops of a larger image and most likely rotated.

I think one thing to remember is that these pretty pictures really do "sell" the space program(s) to the general public. Some of the images were released to the public just because they looked cool. While other images are really purely for scientific purposes. I mean some of this stuff I don't think it's possible for it not to look cool. But other images are really stuff that only an astronomer or physics professor gets excited about.

14

qleap42 t1_iu7j3xs wrote

When the images are created you can rotate them in any direction you want. There is no preferred direction. The images were made by different astronomers over 30 years. The astronomers didn't orient the images in the same direction. Whoever made the collection of images didn't crop and rotate the images so they were all in the same direction.

7

probablywhy t1_iu7kl8l wrote

Replying to the_fungible_man (#303,686)

Also can't believe no one has mentioned it here but there's a technique that allows them to see more stars behind portions of the "clouds" by using processed infared light from those sections

65

imdb_shenanigans t1_iu7kpia wrote

Replying to ItchyK (#303,703)

Other images? If you give me a A4 size sheet of paper and tell me these black and white dots represent 100 billion galaxies out there and I will then go "bleh, only interesting to an astronomer, unless you take an IMAX to a black hole, it ain't gonna impress me", this would indicate that when I thought I was "high and thinking", I was giving myself too much credit for the ability to think.

3

ItchyK t1_iu7kx2c wrote

Replying to imdb_shenanigans (#305,619)

I'm talking about visually. And there's a lot of people who just don't give a shit about NASA and want to defund it. So putting out these cool pictures is a way of keeping the public interested.

4

DeletedUser2 t1_iu7rcx0 wrote

This one was taken from a different angle. About 20 degrees clockwise from the usual.

2

diox8tony t1_iu7u2b7 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#303,105)

I refuse to believe OP is talking about the rotated image. However I couldn't pause enough to see any parallax differences so idk what difference they are asking about.

6

ThePharmercy t1_iu7wbn2 wrote

can someone who knows about telescopes tell me the difference between NIRCAM and MIRI images? I assume it has something to do with what wavelengths are being captured or something right?

24

trollsmurf t1_iu7xagu wrote

Why not? If rotated it wouldn't fit a rectangle.

1

L0nely_L0ner t1_iu837w1 wrote

Replying to MalcolmY (#303,004)

What? I seriously don't understand what's your problem. There are 3 things going on here.

  1. the pictures are just rotated, not taken from a different "angle"

  2. some of them are more zoomed in than the others

  3. they use different type of coloration process and were taken with different type of infrared cameras.

Seriously, you know you can rotate pictures, right...?

4

OnlyGoodVibesYo t1_iu85mtj wrote

Replying to trollsmurf (#307,632)

They’re saying it’s impossible to view objects at astronomical distances from different angles. If I were to move five feet to the left of a normally sized picture that is five feet away from me, I would have a vastly different view of the picture. If that same picture was the size of a skyscraper and, say, a mile away, my five foot shift to the left would functionally offer no different view of the picture.

Now multiply the distance and size of the skyscraper sized picture by billions and you’ll see that even looking at a nebula many thousands of light years away from vantage points thousands of miles apart would offer no difference in the angle at which we view the nebula.

But OP is mistaking angle for rotation. I can tilt my head in any of those instances and get the same effect for any object at any distance.

9

QuentinUK t1_iu86pns wrote

The earth is spinning so things appear to rotate.

−8

MalcolmY OP t1_iu88sr7 wrote

Replying to diox8tony (#307,121)

Yes I wasn't asking about simple rotation of the image. The image looks like it was taken from somewhere else in space. Like imagine if Hubble was imaging to the right X light years, while Spitzer was to the left X light years. That was my initial perception when I saw the image, but obviously it wasn't something like that. So I was wondering what was going on.

It seems the consensus is it was simply "rotated".

1

MalcolmY OP t1_iu88yk7 wrote

Replying to OnlyGoodVibesYo (#308,759)

Yes exactly but I wasn't asking about rotation, I just couldn't find a better word than angle for the thing you explained in your first paragraph. However, it appears the image was merely rotated.

2

amora_obscura t1_iu89t6j wrote

They are taken at different angles (no up or down in space!). Whoever made this composite did not align them.

2

SiteLine71 t1_iu8mtu3 wrote

Isn’t the JWST 1000000kms from the Hubble telescope. What you see is a million kilometres view angle difference also. Actually happy, gives us a different view

−2

Lord_Space_Lizard t1_iu8oiga wrote

Replying to DuncanEastwood (#309,594)

> It 𝘸𝘢𝘴 taken from somewhere else in space.

They're 7,000 light-years away from us. A light year is 6,000,000,000,000 miles so these things are 42,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. A couple hundred thousand miles between camera locations aren't going to do shit to perspective.

> The object that we're "viewing" and the telescopes have all been moving since the first images were captured.

Again, they're 7,000 light-years away, in the 30 years between photos there wasn't enough time for things to move enough to have any impact

11

Lord_Space_Lizard t1_iu8pbh7 wrote

Replying to SiteLine71 (#311,212)

> Isn’t the JWST 1000000kms from the Hubble telescope. What you see is a million kilometres view angle difference also.

And we're taking photos of things 63,000,000,000,000,000 km away, so the viewing angle is almost exactly the same.

edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/ygq9yq/pillars_of_creation_scale/ this explains pretty well why the distance between Hubbel and JWST makes no difference to the angle in photographing thing this far away.

6

caelis76 t1_iu8rgey wrote

So the Marvel stories in the 80ties wer3 right.

1

altblank t1_iu9b31e wrote

There are no directions in space. No up, down, east, west, etc. An object an assume any orientation and it will still be correct.

Creative license with presenting images, though, is as old as time.

1

the-dusty-universe t1_iu9dali wrote

Replying to r_alex_hall (#308,385)

Quick explanation: think of wavelengths in terms of energy. Short wavelength = high energy, long wavelength = low energy. So in this case in the UV/optical (HST), you mostly see the high energy photons from young, hot stars. In the near-infrared (NIRCam), you mostly see slightly lower energy photons from older, cooler stars. In the mid-infrared (MIRI), you see the even lower energy photons from dust that absorbed higher energy photons from stars (blocking us from seeing them) and then cooled and radiated that energy away.

7

mikeyt6969 t1_iu9soez wrote

Maybe because it like us is moving through space and nothing is stationary so after enough time, different angles of the same things can be seen.

1

Lord_Space_Lizard t1_iuamo4w wrote

Replying to SiteLine71 (#319,485)

> What’s with people screen shooting what you wrote nowadays. Is this some kind of belittling, I know what I wrote

You mean quoting? It's so that when there are lots of replies to a comment and then replies to those replies someone reading this comment knows what's it's in reference to.

1