Page 1 of 1
Copeland's Septet of Galaxies in FT1.2!
Posted: 10.12.2005, 22:01
by t00fri
Hi,
besides the famous Stephan's Quintet,
Copeland's Septet group of galaxies in Leo is just amazing! These 7 galaxies are between 14.5 and 16.2 magnitudes dim. So once more nothing would be seen in a "castrated" version of my deepsky.dsc data base.
Have a look below, how the septet in Celestia-FT1.2 compares with the best photo I could find. [For clarity, I eliminated some stars in that photo]. Note the perfect agreement in size, orientation and galaxy types!
Enjoy,
Bye Fridger
Posted: 10.12.2005, 22:05
by PlutonianEmpire
Looks nice!
Posted: 10.12.2005, 22:10
by Malenfant
looks great!
Posted: 10.12.2005, 22:23
by buggs_moran
Absolutely wonderful Fridger!! Thanks again for your work. My students are amazed by the vastness of the universe your and Toti's addon makes visible. We will definitely be visiting the Septet this week.
Posted: 10.12.2005, 22:40
by t00fri
buggs_moran wrote:Absolutely wonderful Fridger!! Thanks again for your work. My students are amazed by the vastness of the universe your and Toti's addon makes visible. We will definitely be visiting the Septet this week.
Great to hear! But this is NOT an add-on
. It's meanwhile completely integrated into the official Celestia archive in the CVS.
Bye Fridger
Posted: 11.12.2005, 01:05
by BlindedByTheLight
Awesome! To paraphrase Howard Stern (or was it Neils Bohr? I get the two confused)...
"Anyone who is not shocked by what Celestia can do has not played with it enough."
Posted: 11.12.2005, 02:08
by Cham
VERY NICE ! Fridger !
Can't wait to have the final official version for OS X.
Posted: 11.12.2005, 14:20
by Tech Sgt. Chen
That is totally awesome! It looks exactly like the photo! I've always been amazed by galaxy clusters. Reminds me how vast the universe is!
Posted: 11.12.2005, 16:03
by t00fri
Tech Sgt. Chen wrote:That is totally awesome! It looks exactly like the photo! ...
That was the idea
Thanks,
Fridger
Posted: 11.12.2005, 21:29
by BlindedByTheLight
Fridger, gotta a question for ya... when you say you removed stars for clarity, were those local stars from the Milky Way or interstellar stars (if that even makes any sense...)?
I'm assuming local but just wanted to check...
Posted: 11.12.2005, 21:38
by t00fri
BlindedByTheLight wrote:Fridger, gotta a question for ya... when you say you removed stars for clarity, were those local stars from the Milky Way or interstellar stars (if that even makes any sense...)?
I'm assuming local but just wanted to check...
Well Copeland's Septet is located in Leo, which is almost "oposite" to the visible Milky Way branch. Nothing to do with MilkyWay, I guess.
But of course I did not inspect these few stars in any way.
Bye Fridger
Posted: 11.12.2005, 22:50
by selden
In general, foreground stars that have to be removed are members of the Milky Way galaxy, although they may be members of the halo, of the thick disk or of the thin disk. From our point of view within the thin disk, all three regions are visible in most directions.
In other words, foreground stars are almost always local stars (local to our Milky Way galaxy, I mean, not necessarily very close to the sun). In a few situations extremely high magnifications of extremely long exposure images can resolve stars of the closest galaxies. In some circumstances those stars would be "foreground" stars for images of more distant galaxies. That's not the case here.
"Interstellar" means "between the stars," which doesn't make much sense in this situation.
Posted: 11.12.2005, 22:58
by t00fri
selden wrote:In general, foreground stars that have to be removed are members of the Milky Way galaxy, although they may be members of the halo, of the thick disk or of the thin disk. From our point of view within the thin disk, all three regions are visible in most directions.
In other words, foreground stars are almost always local stars (local to our Milky Way galaxy, I mean, not necessarily very close to the sun). In a few situations extremely high magnifications of extremely long exposure images can resolve stars of the closest galaxies. In some circumstances those stars would be "foreground" stars for images of more distant galaxies. That's not the case here.
"Interstellar" means "between the stars," which doesn't make much sense in this situation.
Selden's argument is certainly correct. Sorry I must have been "sleeping"
Bye Fridger
Posted: 11.12.2005, 23:30
by BlindedByTheLight
Thank you to you both (again!).
Posted: 12.12.2005, 03:48
by buggs_moran
t00fri wrote:buggs_moran wrote:Absolutely wonderful Fridger!! Thanks again for your work. My students are amazed by the vastness of the universe your and Toti's addon makes visible. We will definitely be visiting the Septet this week.
Great to hear! But this is NOT an add-on
. It's meanwhile completely integrated into the official Celestia archive in the CVS.
Bye Fridger
Okay, addition to Celestia's main program
I was surfing the stars and found these as well. The first is Hickson Compact Group 68 and the second is The Leo Quartet.
http://members.aol.com/anonglxy/besthick.htm
AND
http://www.astromatt.com/GalaxyPages/LeoQuartet.html
Posted: 12.12.2005, 04:58
by Cham
Looks VERY good, despite that the galaxies shown in the Celestia pictures are way too bright. Good work. More comparisons please...
Posted: 12.12.2005, 11:47
by ElChristou
Fantastic, those comparisons... Here we can really appreciate Fridger's work...
CELs would have been nice
Posted: 23.12.2005, 16:26
by JackCrow
Re: CELs would have been nice
Posted: 23.12.2005, 17:01
by symaski62
Posted: 27.12.2005, 14:33
by JackCrow
Ah ha. Now I get it.
Many thanks.