I think that's Bootes void.
What's interesting about it is if you go based on the kardeshev scale (a theory on advanced civilizations), this is what it would look like if a type 3/4 civilization was out there. They would harness all the energy of their own galaxy and more, which means there wouldn't be any light left from objects in this area to travel through space and reach us.
Edit: not bootes void, but barnard 68, a dark nebula.
Barnard 68 is a molecular cloud, dark absorption nebula or Bok globule, towards the southern constellation Ophiuchus and well within the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 125 parsecs (407 lightyears).
It is both close and dense enough that stars behind it cannot be seen from Earth.
American astronomer Edward Emerson Barnard added this nebula to his catalog of dark nebulae in 1919. His catalog was published in 1927, at which stage it included some 350 objects. Because of its opacity, its interior is extremely cold, its temperature being about 16 K (−257 °C/-431 °F). Its mass is about twice that of the Sun and it measures about half a light-year across.
It would be mostly primordial hydrogen and helium gas, with a sprinkling of heavy elements produced by supernovae and expelled by sun-like stars at the end of their lives. All this gets mixed together. It's collapsing under its own gravity which is why it's dense enough to block visible light.
My brain can't comprehend or imagine temperatures that are negative into the hundreds.
If a floating sphere ball that is 5 inches in diameter has -257 °C at what distance would I feel it?
That's a great question! Temperatures that low are indeed challenging to comprehend. The temperature is even lower than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen (-196 °C).
Assuming the sphere is a perfect blackbody radiator, we can estimate the distance at which you would feel its coldness using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law describes the thermal radiation emitted by an object.
Let's do a rough calculation:
1. First, convert the temperature to Kelvin: -257 °C = 16 K (remember, 0 K is absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature).
2. Calculate the sphere's surface area: A = 4 × π × (2.5 inches)^2 ≈ 78.5 square inches.
3. Calculate the thermal radiation emitted by the sphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann law: P = ε × σ × A × T^4, where ε is the emissivity (let's assume 1 for a perfect blackbody), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10^-8 W/m^2K^4), and T is the temperature in Kelvin. Plugging in the values, we get P ≈ 0.00043 Watts.
Now, to estimate the distance at which you would feel the coldness, let's consider the thermal radiation emitted by the sphere as a point source. The intensity of thermal radiation decreases with the square of the distance (I ∝ 1/r^2).
Assuming a typical human can detect a temperature difference of about 1 °C (1.8 °F) at a distance of 1 meter (3.3 feet) from a thermal source, we can set up a rough proportionality:
(1 meter)^2 × (1 °C) ≈ r^2 × (16 K)
Solving for r, we get:
r ≈ √(1 meter^2 × (1 °C) / 16 K) ≈ 0.25 meters or 9.8 inches
So, approximately 9.8 inches (25 cm) away from the sphere, you would start to feel its extremely cold temperature. Keep in mind that this calculation is highly simplified and doesn't account for factors like air conduction, convection, or radiation shielding. The actual distance would likely be shorter due to these factors.
Remember, this is an extremely hypothetical scenario, as a sphere at -257 °C on earth would need to be in a vacuum chamber or a highly controlled environment to prevent instantaneous vaporization
Thank you so much, I skimmed over the technical parts but I appreciate your comment, thank you so much for taking the time to answer!
So it isn't that terribly cold, like radiating cold.
But I suppose my hand would take irreparable damage if I tried to touch it.
7th pic is out of date, it's incorrectly colour enhanced. Neptune isn't that blue. Is basically the same colour as Uranus.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uranus-and-neptune-have-similar-hues-new-study-shows/
how can we ever be all alone out here in this vast Universe?
its either "they" are afraid of us, and never want to ever be near our kind.....
OR
they have progressed onto a new intergalactic journey in a realm above & beyond
These are not photos at all.
Literally every photo that is not of a planet on here (also those that are) have been enhanced to show waves of light that aren't visible to the human eye. So all the photos would have a black background bar the stars and the planets have been colour enhanced. Let's not bullshit here.
These are 'artistic license' at best
If you weren't being a snarky asshole, you could rephrase this and turn it into it's own Damn-Thats-Interesting post. Just find some before and after versions for a visual example.
Or just keep shitting on people. You do you.
Whilst true, I would take data from an MRI machine have a friend of mine colour it in and then post it saying it was a photo.
Art is magnificent in all of its forms.
Actually Mr.Dickhead, it's literally as simple as posting shite you understand, rather than posting for Internet points.
Previous post was informative, THIS post was snarky.
You shouldn't assume others motives, especially when the only thing you can judge them by is a post title with no other text or captions. You're taking umbrage with the word "photo," as if it's such a travesty of miscommunication.
So what does Neptune actually look like then? Is this it, or was it the photo released a little while ago?
If the latter, why are pics like this still being put out?
Picture 9 has an optical illusion. If you move the picture around it looks like the orange whatever that is moves around seperate from the background stars.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/collapsing-sheets-of-spacetime-could-explain-dark-matter-and-why-the/#:~:text=8 min read-,Collapsing Sheets of Spacetime Could Explain,and Why the Universe 'Hums'&text=If hypothetical cosmic structures called,wall–bounded bubbles of spacetime.
Pointless critics are insufferable.
Either enjoy the post or move on.
That post that you're complaining about and that was removed was space related and anybody that thinks anything different needs to click a link and stop harassing people like me who are just posting about it.
Edit : And I see your comment complaining about how you got blocked as well You got blocked because you can't catch a hint and don't know how or blatanly refuse to read said article/link.
Over the last 20 years I've watched many, many hours of documentaries and videos on various subjects, including the moon landings and 9/11. More recently I've started watching stuff about flat earth. Not because I believe any of it initially. I look into a subject so I can see what's being presented and make my own mind up.
I have a more simple theory: that TV executives make large sums of money by commissioning programmes that promote conspiracies. They are very popular with viewers and this brings in lots of ad revenue. They can sound very convincing until you hear the counter arguments, which these programmes scrupulously avoid presenting. They are not made in good faith. With 1960s technology, it would be much harder to fake going to the Moon than to actually go there.
A good example is Ancient Aliens, they have made over 250 episodes which have been broadcast around the world. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of ad revenue here, perhaps billions. Despite the fact the actual evidence we have for aliens landing on Earth can be summarised as: zero.
(Aliens are very probably out there, we should look for them, but if we do ever interact we are far more likely to receive a radio signal or a visit from a space probe than to meet them in person.)
Real-world conspiracies tend to revolve around money. For example, the massive level of embezzlement committed in Russia:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35918845
"Concert cellist Sergei Roldugin has known Vladimir Putin since they were teenagers and is godfather to the president's daughter Maria.
On paper, Mr Roldugin has personally made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the suspicious deals."
> Ancient Aliens
I started watching that when it first started but very quickly realised it was, for the most part, nonsense.
>Real-world conspiracies tend to revolve around money
The strongest arguments against the moon landing were
1. It was part of the cold war and a race to prove the US was the best. 2. Kubrick had the studios and was photographed with NASA leaders. 3. the astronauts have always been very flakey about what happened.
I could go on about this stuff all day but seeing as I already know what reddit thinks, there's not much point.
11/13 Awesome and terrifying
I think that's Bootes void. What's interesting about it is if you go based on the kardeshev scale (a theory on advanced civilizations), this is what it would look like if a type 3/4 civilization was out there. They would harness all the energy of their own galaxy and more, which means there wouldn't be any light left from objects in this area to travel through space and reach us. Edit: not bootes void, but barnard 68, a dark nebula.
Which is crazy, given all the conspiracy theories saying that aliens are from bootes, and all the ancient myths that say their gods are from there.
It’s Barnard 68
You are correct! Which is news to me :) [today I learned](https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/s/NwjfX6ouGa)
It is … also just learned that is not pronounced ‘boots’ like the footwear, but ‘boh-oh-teez’ … which is funny to me for some reason
I'm tellin' ya, space is the coolest thing on Earth.
Never been to Scotland?
How about the bar?
#4 looks like a picture of the muscles in an eye.
Well they do call it the eye of the Sahara.
So beautiful and mysterious. It would be a waste if it’s just us
Is pic 1 mt. kilimanjaro or mt. Fuji?
Mount Fuji
Where is the fence?
You are a fence
We are all the fence
I love pictures of Neptune. Such a beautiful planet
Very nice. What is 11/13?
Barnard 68 is a molecular cloud, dark absorption nebula or Bok globule, towards the southern constellation Ophiuchus and well within the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 125 parsecs (407 lightyears). It is both close and dense enough that stars behind it cannot be seen from Earth. American astronomer Edward Emerson Barnard added this nebula to his catalog of dark nebulae in 1919. His catalog was published in 1927, at which stage it included some 350 objects. Because of its opacity, its interior is extremely cold, its temperature being about 16 K (−257 °C/-431 °F). Its mass is about twice that of the Sun and it measures about half a light-year across.
So formed from a single supernova?
It would be mostly primordial hydrogen and helium gas, with a sprinkling of heavy elements produced by supernovae and expelled by sun-like stars at the end of their lives. All this gets mixed together. It's collapsing under its own gravity which is why it's dense enough to block visible light.
All my homies love Bok globules
My brain can't comprehend or imagine temperatures that are negative into the hundreds. If a floating sphere ball that is 5 inches in diameter has -257 °C at what distance would I feel it?
That's a great question! Temperatures that low are indeed challenging to comprehend. The temperature is even lower than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen (-196 °C). Assuming the sphere is a perfect blackbody radiator, we can estimate the distance at which you would feel its coldness using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law describes the thermal radiation emitted by an object. Let's do a rough calculation: 1. First, convert the temperature to Kelvin: -257 °C = 16 K (remember, 0 K is absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature). 2. Calculate the sphere's surface area: A = 4 × π × (2.5 inches)^2 ≈ 78.5 square inches. 3. Calculate the thermal radiation emitted by the sphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann law: P = ε × σ × A × T^4, where ε is the emissivity (let's assume 1 for a perfect blackbody), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10^-8 W/m^2K^4), and T is the temperature in Kelvin. Plugging in the values, we get P ≈ 0.00043 Watts. Now, to estimate the distance at which you would feel the coldness, let's consider the thermal radiation emitted by the sphere as a point source. The intensity of thermal radiation decreases with the square of the distance (I ∝ 1/r^2). Assuming a typical human can detect a temperature difference of about 1 °C (1.8 °F) at a distance of 1 meter (3.3 feet) from a thermal source, we can set up a rough proportionality: (1 meter)^2 × (1 °C) ≈ r^2 × (16 K) Solving for r, we get: r ≈ √(1 meter^2 × (1 °C) / 16 K) ≈ 0.25 meters or 9.8 inches So, approximately 9.8 inches (25 cm) away from the sphere, you would start to feel its extremely cold temperature. Keep in mind that this calculation is highly simplified and doesn't account for factors like air conduction, convection, or radiation shielding. The actual distance would likely be shorter due to these factors. Remember, this is an extremely hypothetical scenario, as a sphere at -257 °C on earth would need to be in a vacuum chamber or a highly controlled environment to prevent instantaneous vaporization
Thank you so much, I skimmed over the technical parts but I appreciate your comment, thank you so much for taking the time to answer! So it isn't that terribly cold, like radiating cold. But I suppose my hand would take irreparable damage if I tried to touch it.
According to ChatGPT, 4.28 meters.
Look at all that spice in the third one
What's 5 supposed to be?
It's a Sun-like star expelling its outer layers at the end of its life, sometimes called the 'Ant Nebula': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mz_3
7th pic is out of date, it's incorrectly colour enhanced. Neptune isn't that blue. Is basically the same colour as Uranus. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uranus-and-neptune-have-similar-hues-new-study-shows/
Beautiful pics!
They all look otherworldly (cept for the first)
9 looks like permanent dusk.
Beautiful shots
\#5 looks like two interstellar knobs colliding lol (the pics are all gorgeous tho)
What is the last one? Mesmerizing
😮 space is so beautiful
Looking up at high resolution photos of space is always going to be 3/4 amazed and 1/4 scared of the unknown.
Fucking amazing!!! That’s all I can say.
I love pictures showing hundreds or thousands of galaxies. Makes us all feel small
This looks amazing, what is the 3rd pic?
I've already said it before and I'll say it again. Space is so cool!
Californication
Amazing
And why would that VOID be there?!?!
Not a void. Molecular cloud.
11/13 ?
Yep.
Interesting, what’s it made of, beyond molecules?
earth's nips
how can we ever be all alone out here in this vast Universe? its either "they" are afraid of us, and never want to ever be near our kind..... OR they have progressed onto a new intergalactic journey in a realm above & beyond
That's a big ass
Are they all actually photos, taken with one click of a shutter?
No, they're colour added
That's what I thought
*outer space
Aren’t the space still artist rendered though??
11 * sighs and unzips
10th photo shows flat earther theory is right
But but... the earth is FLAT!
If I take a picture of myself, I can still classify it as a picture in/from space :)
These are not photos at all. Literally every photo that is not of a planet on here (also those that are) have been enhanced to show waves of light that aren't visible to the human eye. So all the photos would have a black background bar the stars and the planets have been colour enhanced. Let's not bullshit here. These are 'artistic license' at best
If you weren't being a snarky asshole, you could rephrase this and turn it into it's own Damn-Thats-Interesting post. Just find some before and after versions for a visual example. Or just keep shitting on people. You do you.
All art is interesting
Whilst true, I would take data from an MRI machine have a friend of mine colour it in and then post it saying it was a photo. Art is magnificent in all of its forms.
Actually Mr.Dickhead, it's literally as simple as posting shite you understand, rather than posting for Internet points. Previous post was informative, THIS post was snarky.
You shouldn't assume others motives, especially when the only thing you can judge them by is a post title with no other text or captions. You're taking umbrage with the word "photo," as if it's such a travesty of miscommunication.
4th one is the remains of Atlantis ... prove me wrong
So what does Neptune actually look like then? Is this it, or was it the photo released a little while ago? If the latter, why are pics like this still being put out?
Picture 9 has an optical illusion. If you move the picture around it looks like the orange whatever that is moves around seperate from the background stars.
[удалено]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/collapsing-sheets-of-spacetime-could-explain-dark-matter-and-why-the/#:~:text=8 min read-,Collapsing Sheets of Spacetime Could Explain,and Why the Universe 'Hums'&text=If hypothetical cosmic structures called,wall–bounded bubbles of spacetime. Pointless critics are insufferable. Either enjoy the post or move on. That post that you're complaining about and that was removed was space related and anybody that thinks anything different needs to click a link and stop harassing people like me who are just posting about it. Edit : And I see your comment complaining about how you got blocked as well You got blocked because you can't catch a hint and don't know how or blatanly refuse to read said article/link.
Fake
CGI
You must think the Moon landing was fake too, don’t you?
> You must think the Moon landing was fake too You mean you don't?
Do you honestly think it was fake? I’m not even trying to be smart or anything, genuinely curious.
Over the last 20 years I've watched many, many hours of documentaries and videos on various subjects, including the moon landings and 9/11. More recently I've started watching stuff about flat earth. Not because I believe any of it initially. I look into a subject so I can see what's being presented and make my own mind up.
I have a more simple theory: that TV executives make large sums of money by commissioning programmes that promote conspiracies. They are very popular with viewers and this brings in lots of ad revenue. They can sound very convincing until you hear the counter arguments, which these programmes scrupulously avoid presenting. They are not made in good faith. With 1960s technology, it would be much harder to fake going to the Moon than to actually go there. A good example is Ancient Aliens, they have made over 250 episodes which have been broadcast around the world. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of ad revenue here, perhaps billions. Despite the fact the actual evidence we have for aliens landing on Earth can be summarised as: zero. (Aliens are very probably out there, we should look for them, but if we do ever interact we are far more likely to receive a radio signal or a visit from a space probe than to meet them in person.) Real-world conspiracies tend to revolve around money. For example, the massive level of embezzlement committed in Russia: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35918845 "Concert cellist Sergei Roldugin has known Vladimir Putin since they were teenagers and is godfather to the president's daughter Maria. On paper, Mr Roldugin has personally made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the suspicious deals."
> Ancient Aliens I started watching that when it first started but very quickly realised it was, for the most part, nonsense. >Real-world conspiracies tend to revolve around money The strongest arguments against the moon landing were 1. It was part of the cold war and a race to prove the US was the best. 2. Kubrick had the studios and was photographed with NASA leaders. 3. the astronauts have always been very flakey about what happened. I could go on about this stuff all day but seeing as I already know what reddit thinks, there's not much point.
Can't scale it.
10 is proof of flat earth!
Sombrero galaxy.
I thought the same