Talk:Boomerang Nebula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Boomerang Nebula is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

Internal inconsistency[edit]

This page has an error I cannot resolve. It says, "Keith Taylor and Mike Scarrott called it the Boomerang Nebula in 1980 after observing it with a large ground-based telescope in Australia." Yet one of the external links is to an article published in 1997 entitled, "The Boomerang Nebula: The Coldest Region of the Universe?" Therefore, it appears as if, barring web site monkey business, the Boomerang Nebula got its name well before the claimed date of 1980.

So, are there any astrophysicists who can see what the correct information might be to resolve this wiki's internal inconsistency? Thanks. --SafeLibraries 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The nebula was observed by Wegner and Glass in 1979 (maybe that's what you meant, since 1997 is after 1980...), but might not have officially been named until the Taylor and Scarrott 1980 paper. Nonetheless, it could easily have acquired the colloquial name between the two papers. --Keflavich 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Update photo[edit]

New Hubble photographs are in color and far superior to the existing photo. Will someone correct that? --SafeLibraries 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the cold part?[edit]

I'm not sure how this object is cold. Some sources say there is a star in the middle which is lighting the gas around it. That would make the star the cold part? Some text seems to imply it was once the coldest object (ie 5000 years ago). Anyway, from the image it's lit up like a christmas tree bulb in the Hubble image. That'd make it more like 10000 kelvin. Jeff Carr 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Section Dispute[edit]

I have disputed the article's final paragraph as non-neutral.
I have marked this as such because, in my opinion, the author makes an assumption that the Big Bang actually occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Keener (talkcontribs) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes no such assumption, of course. Since the Big Bang is meaningless in the laws of physics (infinite density and temperature, for one) one cannot prove or disprove that it occured. Therefore the author is merely extrapolating back through general relativity to the time precisely after the Big Bang, and then moving forward. No assumption, no tag. Professor Ninja (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of the temperature[edit]

The page says about "1 K (−272.15 °C; −457.87 °F)", but whether the temperature is really known with accuracy of 0.01 degree? 1 K and 1.00 K are different things. 1.00 K is −272.15 °C, and 1 K is −272 °C. Stas000D (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)