Hubble Captures Surprising Star Motions (amazing)

Using images of a star cluster taken 10 years apart, astronomers detected young stars moving in somewhat surprising ways.

June 2, 2010 | 10:00 am
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae9b56a5ae8b.jpg[/atsimg]

The Hubble Space Telescope imaged the core cluster of the extremely dense star-forming region NGC 3603 in 1997 and again in 2007 (above), revealing tiny motions of hundreds of relatively new stars.

The cluster, located 20,000 light-years from our sun, formed around 1.4 million years ago, and astronomers expected the stars to have settled down. But after two years of analysis of very small differences in the locations of more than 800 stars in Hubble’s extremely sharp images (below), a team led by Wolfgang Brander of the Max-Planck Institute for Astronomy found the stars are still moving at rates that are independent of their mass. This situation is typical of clusters at the earliest stages of formation.

The discovery, reported in June 2 in Astrophysical Journal Letters, may cause astronomers to rethink how clusters form and evolve. The new measurements will help astronomers to develop benchmarks of cluster evolution and better estimate the masses of other star clusters. Many such measurements are based on the stars having reached a more settled state known as virial equilibrium. If the stars haven’t reached this state, the mass of the cluster will be overestimated.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e029c20fe4f8.jpg[/atsimg]
Source: www.wired.com...

More amazing discoveries and pictures from good old Hubble. I love how it is just floating out there-telescoping as it is.

I still say we need a whole fleet of Hubbles (or the next generation) heading out in every direction we can and let it do it's thing.

I can't even imagine all the stuff we are missing. Enjoy

Ooooh baby stars.

Very cute indeed. S+F

So, the star have ability to move? My science teacher teach me during 80's that none of stars move as it stay same place infinity because law of universe something. Now, can I have this argument that infinity is not correct statement about stars' dwell place?

Originally posted by Aslpride
So, the star have ability to move? My science teacher teach me during 80's that none of stars move as it stay same place infinity because law of universe something. Now, can I have this argument that infinity is not correct statement about stars' dwell place?

What school did you go to that taught you that?

Stars are hard to move but they can move each other with their gravity.

Even our own star, Sol moves, as it orbits around the center of our galaxy. Almost all stars do this.

Guess which model of the universe this supports.

Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott
www.youtube.com...

Wow. The cluster is only 1.4 million years "old".
In cosmic time this is just "yesterday" or very recently, when man already was in the erectus phase

Nice.

Originally posted by Aslpride
So, the star have ability to move? My science teacher teach me during 80's that none of stars move as it stay same place infinity because law of universe something. Now, can I have this argument that infinity is not correct statement about stars' dwell place?

Your science teacher was completely wrong. Stars are constantly moving, all of them and they move very, very quickly relative to us (usually). With the stars we can see in our night sky, it's just that they are so far away that when we look at them it's impossible to discern this movement even over several human lifetimes, unless one does very, very precise measurements.

Stars orbit around the center of the galaxy, and stars that are very close in, close to the supermassive black hole there, orbit extremely fast, something that can be seen to change even over a matter of just a few years. Here's a video of stars actually moving taken over the span of 16 years (the images of moving stars starts about 55 seconds in).

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
Wow. The cluster is only 1.4 million years "old".
In cosmic time this is just "yesterday" or very recently, when man already was in the erectus phase

First generation stars only exist for about a million years or so. They tend to be super-duper massive, and so burn up their fuel very quickly and then go supernova. But, because they burn so very, very hot, they convert hydrogen and helium into all of the more massive elements that everything else is made up of. Without these super-massive, super heated first-generation stars, there would be none of the stuff our Earth and even us humans are made up of.

I'm not sure if this cluster is made up of first generation stars, or not. I haven't looked into it closely enough yet.

[edit on 6/2/2010 by LifeInDeath]

reply to post by Grey Magic


I think you are on my level of understanding of this issue. lol

But, these other ATSers, very nice responses. Better than being in a science class-as you get the little Flare mixed in with the responses.

Never really though about the stars constanly moving-but being so far away we'll never see it or notice any difference. Hmmm.

Originally posted by anon72
Never really though about the stars constanly moving-but being so far away we'll never see it or notice any difference. Hmmm.

That reminds me of one of my favorite TV moments. Buzz Aldrin is on Larry King's show describing how he saw something moving so he knew it wasn't a star.

Larry King says "OK, so Stars don't move"

Buzz Aldrin "They move, but they're so far away (you can't see them move)".

And of course we can't see the motion with the naked eye, even Hubble probably can't see the motion in one image. But take images years apart and Hubble can see the motion.

Originally posted by anon72
I still say we need a whole fleet of Hubbles (or the next generation) heading out in every direction we can and let it do it's thing.

I can't even imagine all the stuff we are missing. Enjoy

I too would like to see some next generation Hubbles launched, but I think they are just going to let Hubble die this time and I don't know of even a single replacement. The James Webb Space Telescope is infrared so it's not the same. It will be a sad day for all astronomers and probably some of the general public too when the Hubble dies.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Guess which model of the universe this supports.

Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott

I expect they'll announce Don Scott was right about this soon after they announce he was right about lightning forming the Grand Canyon.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

It helps to have a science teacher who accutly KNOWS science.
stars dont MOVE??????? lololol
a better science statement would be is there anything in the entire universe That ISNT moving lolol.
earth spins 1080 mph earth revolves around sun 60,000 mph soler system moves around galaxy at 250,000 mph galaxy moves through universe at 500k mph ALL APX
ok got all that other galaxies are moving at x mph speed now all this movement is relative tO WHAT??? at what spot is it there is stationary in the universe or is there NO SUCH SPOT??? now thats a science question lolol

Originally posted by anon72
I still say we need a whole fleet of Hubbles (or the next generation) heading out in every direction we can and let it do it's thing.

I can't even imagine all the stuff we are missing. Enjoy

i'm with you!

the more Hubble, the better (to see you with my darling)...

reply to post by anon72




Are you sure about the James Webb being infrared-100%. I didn' t see that-but I could have missed it.

Well, hell, that won't make me happy-I don't think. It would seem to me and with the recent pics being released from Hubble and other craft up there that the more the merrier is best BUT aslo different types to see different things.