Dr. Paul Scowen, who with Jeff Hester took the Pillars of Creation shot, was my math tutor for two years when I was in high school in Houston, TX. Paul was getting his PhD at Rice University and I loved talking to him about various astrophysical things. I can't believe that he took this image as it's been my favorite space photo since I saw it.
When I saw their photograph of M16 Eagle Nebula I was astounded at the majesty those three columns exude. The physical size and the distance from planet Earth is also great food for the imagination. I never tire of looking at that photograph! ❤
i always thought the widefield view represented the eagle rather than the pillars of creation area. beak and large spread wings are more obvious. and that simulation of what you can see through a telescope is way under estimated. maybe if using a tiny aperture scope in a light polluted city it would be accurate.
Another really fun video to watch. My thanks for putting it out, to all the people involved. I was wondering if there's an average density of material in a nebula. Would we actually be capable of seeing the nebula material if we had a human-eye-like observation device there? The definition of nebula given seems a tad, nebulous.
At 5:28, I could see what I think they meant as the queen from the pillar of gas perpendicular to the one he was pointing out. She's even holding a little scepter of some kind =]
The way I understand it, if we was in the middle of a nebula, we wouldn't be able to see it really, because they're really thin, but stretched out over huge distances. Those pillars only look so chunky and solid because we're we can see all of the density - if that makes any sense what so ever :P
Nik's interpreting the 'Star Queen' nebula kind of wrong, but that's probably due to the pictures orientation, imagine rotating 80 degrees counter clockwise @ 5:30 , and you see a much clearer view of the so called Star queen, actually kind of surprised at how well defined 'she' is, probably one of the most accurate names for a nebula I've seen
I have to specify that I want to become an astrophysicist, for my opinion may be biaised, but I really like these videos! They're well done, very interesting and pretty educating. To think of all we now about our Universe, and then to think about all we don't, it's simply amazing. I hope this series of documentaries, because that's pretty much what these videos are, can bring more people into liking scientific fields like astronomy and physics. Well done, Brady! Keep it up!
when he explained the star queen, i saw the exact image of a woman painting with the same head and arm as how he said the eagle was and the fish would be the canvas, as well as the eagle i see one in the large view of the nebula, the large pillar it's head, and its viewed from above whilst gliding, with two large wings swooping round each side, i guess the 3 small pillars on the tip of the right wing.
Actually, I think the "queen" can be seen in a different way than Mr. Szymanek has pointed out; if you turn the picture 90 degrees, the "sled" becomes the body and the scepter of the woman, the latter held out vertically by a slim arm; further up is her bosom, and her crowned head which she bowed down gracefully. Either that, or my imagination got the better of me. :)
question. could it have been possible for our solar system to be close enough for us to see a beautiful nebula painted across the night sky? or would it even look the same? i know he said that the artists aren't cheating THAT much but aren't they adding other IR filters or UV filters to bring out more of the colors that we see in the pictures so if we could actually see a huge nebula across our sky, it wouldn't be as vivid would it?
0:55 The French astronomer Charles Messier was actually looking for comets and made a list of fuzzy Deep Sky Objects so he didn't need to check these out and look elsewhere for comets...
I was shocked to find out how incredibly sparse these "nebulae" actually are...the individual molecules are so widespread that they're practically nonexistent...you see an image like that and you assume that if you were situated inside the structure, it'd be much like being inside a cloud or some sort of soupy mess...not so...you wouldn't even notice it...at all...these structures are just so unimaginably vast that we see them in this form
One of the most beautiful parts of the sky! This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This theory is based on just two postulates 1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself 2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with!
Every time you ask a scientist "is that what it would look like" I swear they they can't give a real answer! Next time I'd ask, "If you were equidistant to the size of the object (in this case 100k AU) in an perfectly impervious spaceship with a protective perfectly transparent window, and were using your natural night adapted vision through protective lenses that only left out harmful spectrum, would that be what it looked like?"
Yup! its hard to not do this thanks to numberphile lol. Im sure its not intended, only our brains cant help findingf patterns where there are none. but pity that...
'Every time you ask a scientist "is that what it would look like" I swear they they can't give a real answer!' He does give a 'real' answer, you just need to listen to it (he explains it as he goes along). A simple yes or no wouldn't really be an answer for the reasons he's given in the video.
It was still an obtuse answer. The answer is usually "no" as a lot of images are false color. They're not completely made up, but not what the eye would capture given enough brightness (which is what people are asking when they as that question).
The perhapsosity is there... As per thefreedictionary, "The quality or condition of being nebulous." I'm guessing it's a political term brazenly stolen by astronomers.
![BBC The Sky at Night - The Pillars of Creation [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/izA80mFiE2Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Paul Scowen, who with Jeff Hester took the Pillars of Creation shot, was my math tutor for two years when I was in high school in Houston, TX. Paul was getting his PhD at Rice University and I loved talking to him about various astrophysical things. I can't believe that he took this image as it's been my favorite space photo since I saw it.
a trick: watch movies at Flixzone. I've been using them for watching all kinds of movies lately.
@Kameron Kayson yup, been watching on Flixzone} for since december myself :)
When I saw their photograph of M16 Eagle Nebula I was astounded at the majesty those three columns exude. The physical size and the distance from planet Earth is also great food for the imagination.
I never tire of looking at that photograph! ❤
The pillars of creation is by far the most beautiful picture of anything I've ever seen.
I always get bewildered at the end with all the voices added up.
Awesome video! I have just retired from the military and I have always wanted to be an astronomer. Looks like I have a new hobby!!
So how's the hobby going?
I'm glad that you came back with my favorite nebula.
it was fun thanks... nice to be back making spacey videos though!
The Pillars of Creation are truly beautiful. I think the most of beautiful thing in the universe.
I like the image at 1:04. It's so pretty and colourful and twinkly. It must be wonderful for astronomers to be in that field.
cheers!
i always thought the widefield view represented the eagle rather than the pillars of creation area. beak and large spread wings are more obvious.
and that simulation of what you can see through a telescope is way under estimated. maybe if using a tiny aperture scope in a light polluted city it would be accurate.
302nd viewer...again!
The thing I dislike the most about Brady's videos is that there are not an infinite number of them.
Another really fun video to watch. My thanks for putting it out, to all the people involved.
I was wondering if there's an average density of material in a nebula. Would we actually be capable of seeing the nebula material if we had a human-eye-like observation device there?
The definition of nebula given seems a tad, nebulous.
At 5:28, I could see what I think they meant as the queen from the pillar of gas perpendicular to the one he was pointing out. She's even holding a little scepter of some kind =]
god i love these videos...
Oh Wow...That's my avatar @ 3:49. The Butterfly Nebula!
The way I understand it, if we was in the middle of a nebula, we wouldn't be able to see it really, because they're really thin, but stretched out over huge distances. Those pillars only look so chunky and solid because we're we can see all of the density - if that makes any sense what so ever :P
love the videos Brady!
Nik's interpreting the 'Star Queen' nebula kind of wrong, but that's probably due to the pictures orientation, imagine rotating 80 degrees counter clockwise @ 5:30 , and you see a much clearer view of the so called Star queen, actually kind of surprised at how well defined 'she' is, probably one of the most accurate names for a nebula I've seen
Imad Gibbs The Butterfly Nebula @ 3:49 is very well named also...
But this is actual picture or wave length data put together to form the image
I don't know what you're talking about because your description of "wavelength data put together to form the image" is exactly how a camera works.
If I don't recall, the tallest pillar is more than 600 light years high
I have to specify that I want to become an astrophysicist, for my opinion may be biaised, but I really like these videos! They're well done, very interesting and pretty educating. To think of all we now about our Universe, and then to think about all we don't, it's simply amazing. I hope this series of documentaries, because that's pretty much what these videos are, can bring more people into liking scientific fields like astronomy and physics.
Well done, Brady! Keep it up!
You're the man Brady!
Great Video and informative
when he explained the star queen, i saw the exact image of a woman painting with the same head and arm as how he said the eagle was and the fish would be the canvas, as well as the eagle i see one in the large view of the nebula, the large pillar it's head, and its viewed from above whilst gliding, with two large wings swooping round each side, i guess the 3 small pillars on the tip of the right wing.
"its a fuzzy thing" i like that. just found this channel thanks to vsauce, love sixty symbols and periodic videos, so i should enjoy this, thanks!
384 likes, 0 dislikes. It's like this is a whole other side of TH-cam untouched by the haters.
premier content of the highest caliber
Yes, according to Wikipedia the Eagle Nebula is about 7000 light years from us so this is what it looked like 7000 years ago.
Actually, I think the "queen" can be seen in a different way than Mr. Szymanek has pointed out; if you turn the picture 90 degrees, the "sled" becomes the body and the scepter of the woman, the latter held out vertically by a slim arm; further up is her bosom, and her crowned head which she bowed down gracefully.
Either that, or my imagination got the better of me. :)
5:40 that was really nice guys! did you make that?
Are we in a nebula? Or what would it look like if we were?
As always...great vid.)
Eats away at the material... where does the material go? Compressed into stars?
Awesome, I've got a picture of 'The Spire' as my desktop wallpaper =D
This is more of a hand than an eagle, I dunno if scientists are blind or what 🤔
question. could it have been possible for our solar system to be close enough for us to see a beautiful nebula painted across the night sky? or would it even look the same? i know he said that the artists aren't cheating THAT much but aren't they adding other IR filters or UV filters to bring out more of the colors that we see in the pictures so if we could actually see a huge nebula across our sky, it wouldn't be as vivid would it?
I heard that the pillars of creation no longer exist because of a supernova or something like that. Is it true?
@1:00 does anyone else see the Hitchiker's Guide's thumb? I'm trying really hard not to panic...
I saw it too.
0:55 The French astronomer Charles Messier was actually looking for comets and made a list of fuzzy Deep Sky Objects so he didn't need to check these out and look elsewhere for comets...
spectacular !!
I was shocked to find out how incredibly sparse these "nebulae" actually are...the individual molecules are so widespread that they're practically nonexistent...you see an image like that and you assume that if you were situated inside the structure, it'd be much like being inside a cloud or some sort of soupy mess...not so...you wouldn't even notice it...at all...these structures are just so unimaginably vast that we see them in this form
I always thought that the 'wing' part of it was the head and it was standing on its feet.
Why does nobody ever mention the phallic nature of the “Pillars of Creation” image?
4:44 wraps it up. The universe is amazing.
this is my wallpaper :D
Mine too.
That was awesome
I really want to know what they taste like?
M16 Eagle Nebula sounds like a assult rifle, version of the m16
I think it looks neither like both descriptions; but rather two pillars of rock.
To me it looks more like a centaur, at least the picture at 4:50
One of the most beautiful parts of the sky!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on just two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with!
Every time you ask a scientist "is that what it would look like" I swear they they can't give a real answer! Next time I'd ask, "If you were equidistant to the size of the object (in this case 100k AU) in an perfectly impervious spaceship with a protective perfectly transparent window, and were using your natural night adapted vision through protective lenses that only left out harmful spectrum, would that be what it looked like?"
i think it looks like two dinosaurs :p
Video duration is 6:19. add those up 6+1+9 = 16 :D
Not anymore :/
You study galaxies and you become jealous of people that study stars.
Aren't galaxies made of stars?
2:56 I see Sasquatch with an apple in his mouth looking down as he touches the ear of a chubby cat.
Nebula (Latin): Cloud
+StereoSpace
mh.... fog
3 dislikes, you mad bro?
Nebula is a pretty nebulous category.
Maybe a bit over-processed.
Yup! its hard to not do this thanks to numberphile lol. Im sure its not intended, only our brains cant help findingf patterns where there are none. but pity that...
still think we're alone people?
Nebulosity. Is that a word?
Finally! :D
Looks more like a rooster holding Italy in claws. xD At least we heard words those pictures been photoshoped. Also other more closer taken photoes..?
Nik looks like Murdoc from MacGyver.
I heard it got blown away by a supernova. :(
I’m American and we don’t call it the “Star Queen”.
Hydrogen gas isn't the only thing that's being excited right now.
2 dislikes, u mad bro?
'Every time you ask a scientist "is that what it would look like" I swear they they can't give a real answer!'
He does give a 'real' answer, you just need to listen to it (he explains it as he goes along). A simple yes or no wouldn't really be an answer for the reasons he's given in the video.
It was still an obtuse answer. The answer is usually "no" as a lot of images are false color. They're not completely made up, but not what the eye would capture given enough brightness (which is what people are asking when they as that question).
there is nothing to hate
too bad the pillars of creation are gone.
a supernova destroyed them 6 millennia ago.
Certainly not fake
The Slo Mo Guys brought me here
yay :D
Nebulocity
it looks like a woman hold both arms of a child.
WOT?! good comment. though that reveals more about u than anything. are u closeted..?
bob ross colored them
I say
of course not josh.!!! every time u ask a scientist...? WOT?! watch the vid again my friend. well, anon person who is , umm, needing info. peace.
LOL they took a picture of a penis shaped space cloud, and called it “Pillars of Creation”.
Don't pretend you didn't see it. ;)
i mad
THAT SHIT IS FUCKING HUGE MAN GODDAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Because they aren't sexual deviants...
The perhapsosity is there...
As per thefreedictionary, "The quality or condition of being nebulous."
I'm guessing it's a political term brazenly stolen by astronomers.
BORING, +1 DISLIKE, u mad bro..