Which one do you want the Hubble to look at?

[blazincajun]

<p>I&nbsp;can't decide.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://youdecide.hubblesite.org/</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[brandbll]

I'm also still pondering which one to vote fore.&nbsp; Hasn't Hubble already checked out the Spiral galaxy, which is in first? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>Here is an email from a colleague concerning that:</p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to the MAST database, NGC40 was observed before with HST instruments GHRS and WFPC2, the latter being a project led by a STScI scientist! Even though it was targeted on the central stars of PNe, such as NGC40, the WFPC2 should in principle have recovered a bit of the nebula itself. Admittedly, it would not have been an image suitable for presentation for the public, as it was obtained in a broadband filter in a short integration time, and not in the light of e.g. [OIII] or H-alpha. But the statement, Hubble has not stared at this object is simply wrong! </DIV><br /><br />So it has been looked at but it wasn't a pretty image apparently.&nbsp; I'm going to be voting for something that truly hasn't been looked at yet...not sure which one yet though<br /><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

I voted for Arp 274. Perhaps we will be able to tell if these galaxies with redshifts that imply very different recession velocities and thus distances, are actually connected or not? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[radared]

<p>PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p><p><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> http://YouDecide.Hubblesite.org and I plead with all of you to vote for NCG4298.</span></font></font></font></font></p><p>I didn't read all of the disscussions before I posted mine as a new topic.</p><p>Please go to the video tab at spacedotcom and read the work they have done with a pair of galaxies that have passed by each other and have actually verified the existance of dark matter by way of the technique of called "gravitational lensing".&nbsp; </p><p>They have documented a "ring" 2.5 lightyears across of dark matter.&nbsp; I have no doubt that they are on to something big!&nbsp; Hopefully, if they take the picture of the "on edge" NCG 4298 and similarly enhance the photo they will be able to demonstrate the existance of the space time warp that has haunted Einstien and all others since.</p><p>I belive that the head on photo shot will reveal the "ring" is actually a "pool" and that the&nbsp; "edge on" photo will be the one that will demonstrate the emission(?) of dark matter at either side(?) of the galaxy in an "on edge" true ring of dark matter that will also reveal the warp.</p><p>IF there happens to be a large enough black hole centered in the galaxy.&nbsp; I belive that the gravitational effects of the dark matter dispersing latteraly will expose the warp in vertical "waves".&nbsp; </p><p>Where else could all of the enery/mass from the blackhole be dispersing to? Can it be detected using the same "gravitational lensing" technique as the "pool" was discovered according to Dr.J?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Once again please vote NGC 4298 and tell your friends and tell them why.&nbsp; radared </p>

 

[radared]

<p>P.S.</p><p>And to go one step further;</p><p>I would venture to add that should it be possible to see the "on edge" ring of dark matter it would also be the first place that one should look for the "rift" upon the edge of the "ring" that would allow travel at a sublight speed.&nbsp; No? </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; radared</p>