I love science

But how did we take a picture of our own Galaxy?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

its either an artists rendition or computer generated.. common sense would tell you its not possible
As far as I know the furthest out we have imaged the Earth from is this picture taken by the Cassini probe orbiting Saturn.

its either that or The Government recovered photos of the galaxy from the wreckage of the flying saucer crash site at Roswell.

Firstly, a complete picture of the Milky Way Galaxy can't be reproduced, as we are in it. You need a telescope that is directly above it and you can't do that realistically.
Secondly, most impressions of galaxies are not taken through a picture, but is edited to form a more realistic image. Thus, most pictures of the Milky Way Galaxy were only impressions and the normal orientation is sideward.

Thirdly, the Milky Way Galaxy is so large, that for it to fit any paper in this world, a satellite would have to be trillions away from the galaxy, similar to how you need to go far away from a mountain to see its entire shape. That satellite hasn't existed yet. And if a satellite did exist, the only thing it can conjure is the side image, because the side has a smaller length than that of the top.

Originally posted by rambo1112
Firstly, a complete picture of the Milky Way Galaxy can't be reproduced, as we are in it. You need a telescope that is directly above it and you can't do that realistically.
Secondly, most impressions of galaxies are not taken through a picture, but is edited to form a more realistic image. Thus, most pictures of the Milky Way Galaxy were only impressions and the normal orientation is sideward.

Thirdly, the Milky Way Galaxy is so large, that for it to fit any paper in this world, a satellite would have to be trillions away from the galaxy, similar to how you need to go far away from a mountain to see its entire shape. That satellite hasn't existed yet. And if a satellite did exist, the only thing it can conjure is the side image, because the side has a smaller length than that of the top.

So basically, these images are lies?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Well, it's pure speculation. We think our Milky Way would look like that because we have other Spiral Galaxies to compare it to, like M101, a great example of a Spiral Galaxy

Originally posted by rambo1112
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Well, it's pure speculation. We think our Milky Way would look like that because we have other Spiral Galaxies to compare it to, like M101, a great example of a Spiral Galaxy

So no one ever should ever map out our own milky way. since we don't have it out, and everything we've done is pure speculation?

Why are we mapping it out then, and making it sound like we know, when we don't?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Ofcourse not everything is speculation, what I ment is that the picture is speculation of what our Milky Way would look. The Cosmos is very real my friend, very real

Why are we trying to map it out? My friend, we are on a journey, we are curious species, we want to know whats out there.

Here is a good picture of our Milky Way, of what we can see, these are real pictures.
djer.roe.ac.uk...

reply to post by rambo1112


I agree about the journey. What I don't agree about is passing off images of our own galaxy as if it's cold hard science.

so?

Anyone else on how we took pictures of our own galaxy?

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by rambo1112

 

I agree about the journey. What I don't agree about is passing off images of our own galaxy as if it's cold hard science.

That image is from here
www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...
It states "This is a drawing of the Milky Way looking down from above" and goes on to explain methods used to map the spiral structure of our Galaxy.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Thank you Pauligirl, you posted that just in time as I was about to ask for a source...good find.
Edit to add: However I just noticed that source has labels on it, versus the OP picture which is unlabeled?

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Anyone else on how we took pictures of our own galaxy?

Hopefully Pauligirl's post answers your question.

I'd like to request that in the future you please post a source for the content you post here from elsewhere (like your picture in the OP). Actually that's not just a courteous thing to do, it's a requirement of ATS and most other sites that require proper attribution of material from external sources. Choosing a thread title that's relevant to the topic of the thread would also be a nice thing to do.

But you're right, you can't make a bird's eye view of the forest if you're inside the forest. There are parts of our galaxy we can't see so any extrapolation involves a little guesswork.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Edit to add: However I just noticed that source has labels on it, versus the OP picture which is unlabeled?

]

look underneath the labeled image
A larger and unlabelled version of the above map is available here.
www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...

Thanks

reply to post by DeadSeraph

So basically, these images are lies?

Originally posted by Astyanax
The OP image is genuine. You'll notice that the viewpoint is in the same plane as the Galaxy. The image is a panorama assembled from photographs taken by the WISE satellite as its telescope camera was rotated through 360°. The colours are false, because WISE really sees in the infrared, but it's a real photo all the same.

Oops. Sorry, wrong photo. I had two tabs open side by side and got a bit confused.

The OP imageis an artist's impression (probably one based on accurate scientific data). It may be adapted from the real image of another galaxy, though; I've seen a Hubble photo that looks a lot like it.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


We didn't.

I suppose I should apologize for being so facetious. What I intended to point out (and never really did sufficiently), is that I think it's superfluous of the scientific community to release such images almost as if they are factual. I'm sure everyone has seen them (with the "You are here" indicators). I'm all for scientific discovery. I often marvel at the size of the milky way (let alone our own universe). But I take contention with images being propagated as being the milky way which clearly cannot be authentic (as we have yet to barely leave our own solar system, let alone our galaxy).

There was a thread posted not too long ago with composites of portions of the milky way which we've actually photographed. It's stunning in it's beauty and it's scope. I'd prefer such images be used instead of "artists renditions" of what our galaxy looks like face on, as the former is based on fact, and the latter speculation.

Apologies for any misunderstandings. I start terrible threads

Science does that often, make a theory and create visions to condition people to think science knows exactly what they are doing. They don't come right out and say their pictures are real or even that their theories are real, they let us assume that they told us they are real. This happens in education a lot and people are always assuming they are learning reality when in essence they are learning an accepted perception of reality. This ploy used by science, I call it a ploy because they are somewhat aware of it, qualifies science as a religion in my mind because it's acceptance is based on belief. I do like science, I just don't believe everything that is said from these fields without looking at it's evidence and determining the way the evidence was analyzed. This includes studying exclusions that apply.

I believe the picture in question is an artists rendition of the Milky Way. As mentioned above, a complete picture of the Milky Way would be, currently, impossible from in it.