Talk:NGC 7027/Archive 1

600 years

That seems rather short. Are we sure this is not a typo?©Geni 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It has to be an error. If the nebula is 3000 light years away and only 600 years old, we couldn't even see it yet.Ravenicus451 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on whether we're defining the actual nebula or what we can see. If it is 3000 lightyears away, yes, it must be currently at least that old, but as far as we can tell, it is 600. Bpenguin17 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ive always called it "the prism nebula" as it looks like light being scattered through 4 prisms, one of the most beautiful and close sky objects and without a name...how sad...it has one now and you cant take it away.

So now it does have a name, i just gave it one, THE PRISM NEBULA might as well if noone else is going to bother even though they have studied and studied it. even if this gets poo pood and deleted ...which it shouldnt as its perfectly reasonable thing to do as it rather more interesting than just a number with it being so close, so young and such a bright object. so there you have it!

the nebula formerly known as ngc 7027. because now youve read this you will always think of it as that in any case so my work here is done.

i didnt discover it but ive seen it and that gives me the right i think- especially as an amateur who isnt too good at remembering numbers- i always call it ngc 7207 and have too google the damn thing to remind myself...so its called the prism nebula . no arguments. ok astronomy bods? you got that? thats Prism with a P. rhymes with schism and now its stuck in your head - much more catchy than ngc whatever. Jneson (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Name

I heard some people call it the Crazy Carpet, for its similarity to the well-known snow toy. However, I do not find any reference online. CielProfond (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NGC 7027. 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/20080907080302/http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/latter/N7027description.html to http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/latter/N7027description.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Planetary Nebula NGC 7027 - age and distance

Copied from "User talk:Drbogdan#Planetary Nebula NGC 7027 - age and distance"

-- "Planetary Nebula NGC 7027" - age and distance --

Dr Bogdan,

I have a possibly naive question relating to planetary nebula NGC 7027 ("NGC_7027"), to which you recently contributed). Is there an error in the article or is there an explanation to what follows? I read that this PN is only ~600 years old (I checked the source in note 8, the citation is correct). I also read that this PN is located ~3000 light-years from us (I checked the source in note 2, the citation is correct). If I understand correctly, this means that what we currently observe is what used to take place ~2400 years before this PN came into existence. But I also find a Hubble image of this PN in the article (looks like it's a photograph of what we will only be able to see in a few thousand years, i.e. it seems to have required a time machine, but there is no such indication in the article)... Do I miss something or is there an error in the article? Whatever the answer, I assume that some clarification might be needed in the article. Thanks in advance and sorry for asking you specifically - didn't know who to write to.

BR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.25.191.177 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your post - good questions - perhaps the best place to find answers to your questions is on the related talk-page - at => "Talk:NGC 7027" - I'm copying this post to that talk-page (at => "Talk:NGC 7027#Planetary Nebula NGC 7027 - age and distance") - perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this than I at the moment will be able to help you with your questions - Thanks again for your post - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from other Editors Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Time is a wibbly wobbly concept, especially when talking about distances such as this. It's customary to date distant objects according to the light cone, i.e. to consider the age of an object based on our own physical location and what we are able to observe now. We are currently seeing the light of the nebula when it was 600 years old, and if we could magically teleport to the nebula's location, we would observe that it's "actually" 3600 years old (600 years + the 3000 years its light took to travel here). So yes, the article is correct as it is now. --91.153.168.166 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)