Hubble Views Galaxy’s Dazzling Display


Dec. 13, 2019

Hubble Views Galaxy’s Dazzling Display

Hubble image of NGC 3175
NGC 3175 is located around 50 million light-years away in the constellation of Antlia (the Air Pump). The galaxy can be seen slicing across the frame in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, with its mix of bright patches of glowing gas, dark lanes of dust, bright core, and whirling, pinwheeling arms coming together to paint a beautiful celestial scene.

The galaxy is the eponymous member of the NGC 3175 group, which has been called a nearby analog for the Local Group. The Local Group contains our very own home galaxy, the Milky Way, and around 50 others — a mix of spiral, irregular and dwarf galaxies. The NGC 3175 group contains a couple of large spiral galaxies — the subject of this image and NGC 3137 — and numerous lower-mass spiral and satellite galaxies. Galaxy groups are some of the most common galactic gatherings in the cosmos, and they comprise 50 or so galaxies all bound together by gravity.

This image comprises observations from Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3.

Text credit: ESA (European Space Agency)
Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, D. Rosario et al.

Last Updated: Dec. 13, 2019

Editor: Rob Garner

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 14, 2019 2:16 am

Imagine the vast amount of life on another on of the millions of plants/moons within those galaxies.. Its sad that life is so short, that we are Stuck on this planet with useless wars and petty politics, worst of all the lying greens and vile greta…..

It makes we appreciate space even more.

Reply to  Sunny
December 14, 2019 4:53 am

If it makes you feel better, even without such wastes, Relativity would hold us back for lifetimes between each star.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Patrick
December 14, 2019 11:45 am

I never predict the limits of future science, and remain optimistic.

Relativistic mechanics is a continuum theory and Quantum mechanics is particulate. They are mutually contradictory. One of them must be wrong.

What new science and technology the ultimate reconciliation will reveal is no one’s guess.

Gordon Lehman
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 14, 2019 5:59 pm

I’m not sure quantum mechanics is particulate. The really untenable aspect of quantum mechanics a la Mr. Bohr is the notion that in the wave function there is no position or velocity until YOU ping it. Or maybe some alien (or a salamander) pinged it at the same time and messed it up for you. This is the kind of stupid you get when you insist on following a concept, climate algorithm, or equation beyond the zero/infinity point. It may be better to think of the dark energy as the wave function; sans you, the alien or salamander. Just a vacuum energy without any boson/patticle we have yet to comprehend.

Reply to  Sunny
December 14, 2019 12:31 pm

Extra vile St Greta, …

In her words “… we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall …”, at Turin just the other day.

Rod Evans
Reply to  goldminor
December 15, 2019 1:38 am

That would be considered a “hate crime” here in the UK. I wonder if anyone has started proceedings against her?

Joel O’Bryan
December 14, 2019 2:29 am

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….”,
May the Force be with you.

Unfortunately in this galaxy, the farce be with us. The climate farce that is.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 14, 2019 4:56 am

Hey, maybe Disney Woke Wars can shoehorn in Warmunism too!

Larry Antee
December 14, 2019 4:10 am


Craig Rogers
December 14, 2019 4:53 am

What is everything make of?
“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?j
Isaiah 40:26 It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.k
Because of his ((vast dynamic energy)) and his awe-inspiring power,l
Not one of them is missing.

Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard?
Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity.n
He never tires out or grows weary.o
His understanding is unsearchable.*

John Tillman
Reply to  Craig Rogers
December 14, 2019 5:27 am

The biblical God’s name is not Jehovah.

Biblical creation myths do not harmonize with scientific discoveries.

You’ve been lied to by professional liars.

Craig Rogers
Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 5:46 am

You have a name right?

The Tetragramation the 4 letters for God’s name is in the early manuscripts over 7000 times.
Evil ignorant men have replaced it with Lord, God, etc. which are not names.
Here is a very basic video on the subject.. We have extensive information on the subject for those who really want to know.

John Tillman
Reply to  Craig Rogers
December 14, 2019 8:01 am

Yes, the name of God in the OT is transliterated into English as YHWH, but its vowels are unknown, and even the consonantal pronunciations debatable.

“Jehovah” was invented by 18th century German scholars, using a mix of the vowels from “Adonai” and “Elohim”, often translated as “Lord”. In German “J” is pronounced like English “Y” and “W” like “V”, for starters, so your cult should call itself “Yhvh Witnesses” in English.

Unfortunately, no existing copy of the Septuagint, the Hellenistic Jewish scholars’ translation of the OT into Greek, uses the Tetragammaton. The earliest manuscripts leave space for it. In surviving texts, all but fragments date from the Christian era, in which YHWH is mentioned, substitute “Kurios”, ie “Lord”, for this holy name.

However, there are instances of “Iabe” (iota, alpha, beta, with final epsilon or eta) and “Iao” (iota, alpha omega). The letter beta is now pronounced “v”, but in ancient Greek was “b”. Omega or “big o”, is a long sound, as opposed to short omicron.

When Moses asked the name of the god who spoke to him from the burning bush, YHWH said, “I am Who I am”, or “I am Whoever I Want to Be”, or words to that effect. The tetragram derives from the infinitvie “to be”. Its root is “Yah”, “Yeh” or “Yoh”. Who can say what vowel was then in use? Vowels shift over time.

What the Enlightenment German scholars didn’t know is that under the rules obtaining for the Masoretic OT text, YHWH was given the vowels of either “Adonai” or “Elohim”, depending upon context. So, in concocting “Jehovah”, they mixed the two vowel sets.

Please study the Bible and real scholarship rather than relying upon the lies your sect feeds you.

Craig Rogers
Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 8:51 am

Then you need to contest all the Hebrew names in the Bible.

Jesus used Gods name
John 17:6, 26

Lord’s Prayer Matt 6:9,10
First thing he said was let your name be sanctified !

Jeremiah 17:26!

Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 9:39 am

All names for God used in the Bible were invented by man.
When asked his name, God replied “I am who I am”.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 11:42 am


No I don’t.

As noted, Adonai and Elohim are well translated as Lord or God.

It’s just the name of God in your cult that is bogus, based upon scholarship that was on the right track 300 years ago, but for the past century, at least, Has been known incorrect.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 11:55 am

The problem, as noted, with YHWH, is that its first millennium BC vowels are unknown. Jehovah is also wrong because it uses English J instead of the correct Y consonant, although V might be better than W.

But to claim that Jehovah is God’s name, as does your link, is simply wrong.

John Tillman
Reply to  Craig Rogers
December 14, 2019 8:07 am

PS: Further to complicate matters, H is silent at the end of words, but a heavy breathing consonant in the middle.

As you may know, even in the Masoretic text, vowels still aren’t letters, but diacritical marks or pointers written below the consonants.

If Greek “Iao” be correct, then the name of God in English would be “Yo”, with, as noted, a long o. Little did Rocky know he was invoking the Lord.

Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 8:05 am

It really is amazing how atheists are so desperate to prove to themselves that they are right.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
December 14, 2019 11:38 am

I’m neither an atheist nor desperate. With what part of my comments on the name of God do you find fault?

That the Bible is pre-scientific is self-evident, a fact recognized by Catholic theologian Augustine and Protestant theologian John Calvin.

Alan in Kansas
Reply to  John Tillman
December 15, 2019 6:45 am

Tillman, the common translation you have given for God’s answer to Moses’ question about His name is unclear and a nonsense.

 “I am Who I am”, or “I am Whoever I Want to Be”,

As you pointed out earlier, the divine name is derived from the verb “to be”. However the version chosen by God is the 3rd person, “Yahweh”, which functions in 3 tenses: “He was, He is, and He will be”. An ideal name for a God that is infinite in space and time!

In the biblical quotation from Exodus the first “I am” is the verb “to be”. The second “I am” is the divine name. So the passage should read:
14 God said to Moses, “I am YAHWEH.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘YAHWEH has sent me to you.’”

And in the next verse:
“This is my name forever,
    the name you shall call me
    from generation to generation.”

And from the New Testament:I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
December 17, 2019 11:21 am



The four consonants usually transliterated into English, YHWH, can indeed be translated as I said, depending upon the vowels.

Exodus 3:14, with Hebrew letter order (transliterated) but Englsh word order and punctuation:

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”. This is what you are to say to the Israelites (literally “a son”): “I AM has sent me to you”.

אֱלֹהִים֙ (’ĕ·lō·hîm; plural) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר (way·yō·mer) אֶל־ (’el-) מֹשֶׁ֔ה (mō·šeh), “אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (’eh·yeh) אֲשֶׁ֣ר (’ă·šer) אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה (’eh·yeh).” כֹּ֤ה (kōh) וַיֹּ֗אמֶר (way·yō·mer) לִבְנֵ֣י (liḇ·nê): “אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (’eh·yeh) שְׁלָחַ֥נִי (šə·lā·ḥa·nî) אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃ (’ă·lê·ḵem)”.

Please state what part of this translation you find nonsensical. Thanks.

Note how similar the final Hebrew phrase is to Arabic “assalamu alaykum”, after millennia of divergence.

Reply to  MarkW
December 14, 2019 7:22 pm

No free-minded person (someone you would call “an atheist”) would be interested in contributing to the meanongless dispute berween madness and insanity.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Alexander Feht
December 15, 2019 1:54 am

To a layman in these matters, it all sounds double Dutch to me, though I can detect a certain Welsh language logic, in the spellings outlined above.
I never thought the pronunciation of a mythical figure’s name, could occupy so much time?

John Bell
December 14, 2019 5:51 am

I suppose that there must be many other civilizations out there, and I imagine that all life is as it is here, water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., and cell based, as here on Earth, as there is only one periodic table, and evolution applies universally.

Reply to  John Bell
December 14, 2019 6:04 am

I have a sense that life (as in the intelligent variety) is not as abundant as one may think it should be. “Rare Earth” by Ward & Brownlee asserts that multiple conditions have to exist for life to form and develop to high levels. Also Isaac Asimov once postulated that Silicon could also be the basis of life as has similar behaviour/characteristics to Carbon.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steve Wood
December 14, 2019 11:52 am

The chemistry of silicon is very, very different from the chemistry of carbon.

Phosphazines, however, form stable polymers, have multiple functionality, and are a good possible variant. It would take an unusual planet rich in phosphorous, though.

John Tillman
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 14, 2019 1:07 pm

Yup, phosphorus isn’t plentiful in the galaxy compared to carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. Happily, its concentration is higher in Earth’s crust, since it’s essential in DNA, RNA and ATP.

Reply to  John Bell
December 14, 2019 6:35 am

There are other possible chemical combinations possible with B, C, N, O, Si, P, S. As for water, while it is ideal, isn’t the only possibility. That doesn’t mean that it happens, just theoretically possible.

As for cells, well, there needs to be some enclosed structure…

December 14, 2019 5:58 am

Can anyone confirm if this photo has been reproduced in false colour, ie, different electro magnetic spectra assigned a specific colour for clarity purposes or is it all in the human optical wavelength?

John Tillman
Reply to  Steve Wood
December 14, 2019 8:19 am

“This image is made up of observations from Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) in the infrared and optical parts of the spectrum. Two filters were used to sample various wavelengths. The color results from assigning different hues to each monochromatic image associated with an individual filter.”

Bill Parsons
Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 9:17 am

Doesn’t this raise the question “What is real?” about Hubbel’s – or any other – space photography? Is there a point in space from which the human eye would see such colors emanating from the galaxies?

On another note, I just learned an intesting fact unaware of till something sent me searching the web:

What is the most distant celestial “object” we can see with the naked eye from earth?
Answer: Our nearest galaxy. The implications of this, which I had not conceived before, are that ALL the other objects we can see from earth are inside our own galaxy.

Reply to  Bill Parsons
December 14, 2019 10:16 am

If you are at the right place at the right time it is possible to see ephemeral objects which are much more distant.

the gamma-ray burst GRB 080319B reached a magnitude of 5.8, and was visible to human eyes for half a minute. The distance to GRB 080319B is 10 billion lightyears!

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Bill Parsons
December 14, 2019 11:14 am

If you ever get the chance to be in a place where there are no artificial lights for 100 miles in any direction, and the sky is clear and moonless, look up and check out Andromeda. It’s long axis is about 5.5 times the width of the full Moon. It’s really rather breathtaking.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
December 14, 2019 1:05 pm

I’d forgotten that business about its relative size. I looked a few weeks ago – found Cassiopeia – but couldn’t find Andromeda. I think it was dark enough to see, but I was overlooking a larger, faint smudge of light as you described it.

Computer needs an undate!

michael hart
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
December 14, 2019 2:02 pm

Altitude and atmospheric conditions also make a big difference. At ~17,000 feet in the Karakorum I once saw what seemed to be about two or three times the number of stars I had ever experienced before. My eyesight was also better when I was younger.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Parsons
December 14, 2019 11:50 am

No, it doesn’t raise that question.

The EM radiation captured by instruments is real. The picture was colored in order to make visible the various wavelengths.

The generated image looks close to what a human observer would perceive were he or she able to view the scene with his or her own eyes.

Reply to  Steve Wood
December 14, 2019 1:00 pm

Just like models on a catwalk, they glam them up.

December 14, 2019 6:25 am

“Can anyone confirm if this photo has been reproduced in false colour, ie, different electro magnetic spectra assigned a specific colour for clarity purposes or is it all in the human optical wavelength?”

The CCD camera only captures black and white but they take pictures of the same galaxy through various broad band filters to extract the color information. For galaxies the color is reasonably close to what the human eye would see if the luminosity were sufficient to excite your color receptors in your eye.

David Burrows
December 14, 2019 7:45 am

For all we know life may be rare and we may never meet any other examples. Perhaps our role is to seed life anywhere suitable we can find. On the other hand maybe life springs up spontaneously wherever chemistry is interesting but if that’s the case we should be finding evidence of it locally, hence the interest in Mars. I’d guess it’s either abundant throughout the cosmos or extremely rare and I don’t yet know which.

Pat Frank
Reply to  David Burrows
December 14, 2019 11:57 am

Bacterial life seems likely widespread. Complex life less likely because it requires a water planet.

Intelligent culturally obligate life arose on Earth once only, across 500 million years of complex life. It seems very unlikely.

Cliff Hilton
December 14, 2019 10:05 am

The Bible does not mention life-form outside of mankind whom He came to pay the penalty of sin, for them. Otherwise, a cross would be discovered on each planet where such should be saved.

Angels do not fit in our category. They have already been judged.

I always wonder how the unbelievers take up spiritual conversation when faith is required to understand Scripture. I have never witnessed such encouraging believers to continue in their faith. Generally, it is the contrary.

Here, arguing about the name of God to no profit. Instead, we should wonder that HE has allowed us to contemplate His existence and seek Him out in time of great need. All of us here know this is a plain fact. Unless you choose to deceive yourself.

Hubble’s pictures are more proof of God’s work. All have names.

John Tillman
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
December 14, 2019 11:47 am

The whole point, as for instance in Romans, is that faith only has redemptive value when it is blind. God must remain hidden for belief in Him to mean anything. If His existence were self-evident and subject to the rules of evidence, then no faith would be required.

Jim G
Reply to  John Tillman
December 14, 2019 5:15 pm

@ John Tillman

I haven’t quite figured out if you believe in a creator or that life is merely happenstance.

Irrespective of this;
Have you read Napoleon’s Buttons?
It is a look at chemicals which have made or changed life as we know it.
A fascinating book.

For instance, it takes 22 different amino acids just to make silk. Many compounds require many more.

To me it is mind-boggling that the organs that a caterpillar needs to combine all of these compounds and turn them in to silk, which are necessary for its next stage of metamorphosis, could happen by accident. If one compound were missing, it would not have been able to create the silk, and the creature would have died.

Although faith is necessary, it seems to me that Darwinian evolution requires far more faith than does a creator.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Jim G
December 15, 2019 2:07 am

It’s life Jim, but not as we know it….perhaps?

John Tillman
Reply to  Jim G
December 17, 2019 8:56 am

Life developed thanks to our presence in a universe in which life is possible, ie in which elements beyond hydrogen are synthesized in stars, supernovae and stellar collisions. There is no reason to imagine further divine intervention in the evolution of living things here. Chemisty in our universe permits biochemistry.

There are 22 protein-building (including silk) amino acids, 20 of which are encoded genetically, out of the far more both left- and right-handed amino acids known to exist.

Amino acid composition varies in different kinds of silk. Three major amino acids, ie serine, glycine and alanine, are found in both mulberry and non-mulberry varieties. Among other main amino acids present in most types are tyrosine and valine.

In general, in mulberry silks, glycine, alanine and serine together constitute about 82%, of which some 10% is serine. Tyrosine and valine may be considered next to these at about 5.5 and 2.5%, respectively.

The overall composition of acidic amino groups (i.e., aspartic and glutamic acids) in the mulberry variety is greater than that of the basic amino acids.

Thus, nothing the least bit mysterious about the biochemistry of silk.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  John Tillman
December 15, 2019 3:06 am

That would make ‘Doubting Thomas’ an outlier skeptic.

December 14, 2019 11:20 am

A pristine spiral w/alot of gas & dust, and very small central bulge (and usually very small central black hole to go along w/it).

December 14, 2019 1:13 pm

But if you were viewing it your eyeballs from space, it would suck. It wouldn’t look any different then the night sky when viewed from Earth.

Alan Robertson
December 14, 2019 1:34 pm

It’s interesting to see all of those other galaxies visible in the picture of NGC 3175.

December 16, 2019 5:07 pm

“NGC 3175 is located around 50 million light-years away in the constellation of Antlia (the Air Pump).

“Constellations named after scientific instruments were mostly created by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the 18th century. They include Norma, Circinus, Telescopium, Microscopium, Octans, and Reticulum.”

Well and good! I can almost see the very likeness of an Air Pump.

But I am not so sure about NASA naming new constellations, without a chaperone.

“NASA scientists celebrated 10 years of working of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope by unofficially naming some constellations after landmarks, fictional characters and objects like Hulk, Mount Fuji, Godzilla, Schrödinger’s Cat and more”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights