2 ms·
Think this is the classical image of that star, taken in visible light: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J17554042%2B6551277&NbIdent=1&Radi
by _1txg 5y ago
Think this is the classical image of that star, taken in visible light:
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J17554042%2B6551277&NbIdent=1&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J175540...
Click on fullscreen icon on right-hand side, then zoom out until FoV on bottom left says about 10.63' to 12.23'.
Best I understood, that should be about the same field as the Webb image, based on the instrument definitions I read about. And I wasn't able to line up any dots visually - the new Webb image was taken with a red filter, so I thought it's likely showing photons no one's seen before.
Paging any astros for corrections.
- jcims 5y agoHere’s a nice comparison baggy_trough posted below: https://twitter.com/gbrammer/status/1504369779540480002?s=21 https://twitter.com/gbrammer/status/1504369779540480002?s=21
- qbasic_forever 5y agoWow, that's almost exactly like seeing the world when I got glasses for the first time!
- the_lucifer 5y agoOh god that resolution.
- seaish 5y agoLooks like it's around 2.5' and the Webb image is rotated about 15 degrees clockwise from this one. The four blobs to the left form a quadrilateral that seems to match the four bright galaxies in the Webb image. It seems like the star has moved maybe 10" downward between the two, and used to be just below that round galaxy to the left of the top spike.
- ggm 5y agoAny photon you see nobody has seen before.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- willis936 5y agoPhotographs are funny like that. We can replicate once-unique information.