Talk:Ring Nebula

oldcomments

"the Ring Nebula proves the existence of hollow worlds" (from Hollow Earth).

How does it prove it? Is this ring nebula an hollow sphere like thing, that if was more solid could really be an hollow planet? 200.230.213.152 01:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a gaseous plasma. That quote is from a pseudo-science book, and is misguided. Though it is perfectly acceptable to quote in context in the Hollow Earth article, where it is clearly given as an example of "bad science". Zexpe 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing to mention it without explaining why there should be any connection? I am now googling around to figure out what the pseudo-scientist could possibly have meant by this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:75 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ring Nebula (NGC 6822)

It is proposed to merge this article with Ring Nebula (NGC 6822).

Oppose: I'm not clear on the motivation for this proposed merger. Perhaps it is because of their similar names. However, since these are two distinct objects I disagree with a merger. At most, I would support a disambiguation page, but leave Ring Nebula pointing to here with a disambig note at the top. WilliamKF 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: but agreed that a disambiguation page is needed.Badgettrg 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: shouldn't it be merged with NGC 6822 instead if it relates to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.237.2 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also are those 'official' names for Ring and Bubble nebulae in NGC 6822 that these merges are proposed for? aside from the fact that they look similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.237.2 (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:It's clear that each page contain one nebula only.--Prince Max 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Max (scientist) (talk • contribs) [reply]

Oppose: Co-ordinates alone show that they are two differant objects, and there is an article somewhere that i cannot currently remember the name of that lists all the solar system objects with the same name. --Alphamone (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How old?

The article states "Overall, the observed nebulosity has been currently estimated to be expanding for approximately 1,610±240 years." I'm confused - is this felt to be an estimate of the age of the object? 24.180.10.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Evolution of planetary nebulae

I don't really understand why this part is in the M57 article... anyone interested can find out this info on the planetary nebula page, which has already been linked to. I've removed it from the article but if anyone has any complaints you can find it in the article historyKingMunch (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newer Picture?

NASA and the ESA released a new image of the Ring Nebula that seems to be of a much higher quality. Does this qualify for being copied over to the Commons and being used here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.239.254 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Article

Under properties, the central white dwarf is described as being about 1.2 solar masses. Later on, under the heading of planetary Nebula Nucleus, the central star is described as being 0.61 to 0.62 solar masses. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.8.47 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery not made by Darquier

In their story "Who discovered the Ring Nebula?", Sky&Telescope, June 2017, authors Don Olson and Giovanni Maria Caglieris clearly demonstrate that Antoine Darquier was not the first to discover the Ring Nebula. Instead Messier himself was the first to observe the Ring Nebula in the morning of January 31 st 1779.Chicygni (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ring Nebula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130712214658/http://www.caha.es/the-ring-nebula.html to http://www.caha.es/the-ring-nebula.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burst?

I'm a bit unhappy with the text of this article referring to planetary nebulae as "starburst nebulae" and referring to "The central PNN, star that has burst,...". It takes several thousand years for an AGB star to expell its atmosphere. While that's short on the timescale of stellar evolution, I think it's misleading to refer to that as a "burst". I'm going to reword these passages in a couple of weeks, unless someone defends the use of "burst". PopePompus (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visual depiction

When looking through an amateur scope, this looks a lot different than the photos. It looks more like a faint grey smoke ring or cheerio. The current images are good, but it'd be useful to include an additional image with a more realistic image or depiction of what one might actually expect to see. 172.56.80.238 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]