What's yours ?

[Anonymous No.4527886]

What is your favourite object in space ... star, galaxy, planet, cluster, moon, planet ect... mine is 3C 58

[Anonymous No.4527888]

fuck you OP, that's my favorite
get your own.

[Anonymous No.4527949]

Earth

[Anonymous No.4527951]

My favorite planet is the sun because it's the one that life comes from.

[Anonymous No.4527953]

Let me guess you like it because it's a quark star candidate. The evidence for quark stars is very slim, most people in the field believe the distinction between hypothesised quark stars and neutron stars is non-existent. Neutron stars are also too dense in their cores for neutron degenerate matter.
The idea of quark stars is out dated.

[Anonymous No.4527962]

>What is your favourite object in space

That would be my body.

[Anonymous No.4527965]

The Great Attractor
just for the cool name.

[Anonymous No.4527967]

smells like a 11yr old samefg, probly a real dorker

[Anonymous No.4527985]

>>4527967
>smells like a 11yr old
>SMELLS
>like
>a
>11yr old

[Anonymous No.4528043]

VY canis majoris... big ass mofo

[Anonymous No.4528062]

Centarus A is one sexy motherfucker

[Anonymous No.4528080]

[Anonymous No.4529108]

>>4527953
(OP here)you got me sir ... And yes I do believe that quark stars do exist because we have a pretty clear evidence of that except of that ... they are very exotic and beautiful

[Anonymous No.4529113]

>>4529108
let me hear the evidence

[Anonymous No.4529147]

Way to steal my waifu, op.

[Carl Sagan !SAGAN7mVOk No.4529151]

>>4528080
THIS

[Anonymous No.4529165]

>>4529108
There is no evidence.

[Anonymous No.4529166]

Heart and soul nebula. I'm particularly fond of this false color version. Had it as my background for about a year (then lost the image). Rosette Nebula is nice too.

[Anonymous No.4529168]

>>4527886

Betelgeuse and Venus.

[Anonymous No.4529175]

Horse head all the way. It's hard to see without the right filters, but she's a beauty. Oh and coincidentally, that's where Cerberus hangs out.

[Anonymous No.4529170]

>>4529113
(OP here)I am not a scientist or an astrophysicist therefore I might refuse to provide the evidence as I feel unauthorised to do so... But I might mention that >>4527953 himself has said tat the :"The evidence for quark stars is very slim" which in fact supports my idea. above that I might add a very common philosophical idea which might support my threat "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Russels teapot FTW) and therefore I might state that there is a fair chance that somewhere out there, there is a planet made out of seamen and chocolate milk contained within crust made out of cheese.

[Anonymous !FAzSTjk90I No.4529179]

This is my favorite. It's a galaxy cluster.

Can anyone identify its actual name? I think I've heard it called the "great wall" or something, but I was hoping for a more scientific name because if you google that all you get is china.

[Anonymous No.4529183]

>>4529170
I don't think that's what he meant by evidence, but good try

[Anonymous No.4529194]

>>4529170
not evidence. i will remain agnostic on quark stars.

[Anonymous No.4529210]

>>4529170
The main point I made was that the sheer idea of quark stars it outdated. The observational evidence is non-existent. I said slim because nothing can ever be ruled out on this basis.
It was all based on the assumption that neutron stars were supported by neutron degeneracy. This model is outdated. Without this theoretical backing there is no evidence for quark stars

[Anonymous No.4529225]

Venus. It has incredibly unique surface conditions, an upper atmosphere that's at Earth's pressure and temperature, and it the closest planet to Earth. Yet I feel it's largely been ignored. People know of Viking and all the rovers sent to Mars, the Pioneer and Voyager probes that went to the outer planets, New Horizons heading off to Pluto and perhaps even the Mariner probe that went to Mercury, but there's been no major mission to Venus, beyond a few things to map the surface under the clouds.

[Anonymous No.4529241]

Venus because it's bright as fuck and everyone thinks it's a UFO so I can laugh at them.

[Anonymous No.4529279]

>>4529225
bitches don't know about venera

[Anonymous No.4529327]

>>4529210
(OP here) well all I can say is ... on this image

[Anonymous No.4529333]

i like kuiper belt objects

[Anonymous No.4529350]

>>4529327
I don't mean to crush your spirit but Wikipedia really sucks at conveying the level of acceptance of a theory.
Neutron stars are interesting enough as it is.

[Anonymous No.4529364]

"What is your favorite object in space"

What the fuck? OP needs to borrow Temple Grandin's hugbox.

[Anonymous No.4529406]

Eta Carina is my favourite. 100+ solar mass binary. It is the only nebula that when I look at it with a telescope I can see red colour.
Also I love saying Homunculus.

[Anonymous No.4529409]

My favourite object is RIGEL (Beta Orionis). Because it went supernova around 1150 CE [source uncitable]. Distance from us is about 860 light years (second Hipparcos reduction). A supernova closer than 1000 ly triggers massive genetic modifications, yo.

[Anonymous No.4529514]

>>4529409
Rigel never went supernova.

[Anonymous No.4529534]

>Rigel never went supernova.
How long would it take to become visible?
Just wait and see.

[Anonymous No.4529542]

>>4529409
I'm confused. Are you implying that that star going supernova had some sort of impact on our genetics?

[Anonymous No.4529543]

>>4529534
If we can't see it's gone supernova then there is no way of knowing.

[Anonymous No.4529561]

>>4529542
Pretty sure it's 2012 bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4529597]

>>4529542
DAILY REMINDER: Light speed. If they were to affect us, we would sure as hell see them doing so.

[Anonymous No.4529763]

The Sombrero Galaxy is one sexy mother fucker!

[Anonymous No.4529799]

We never had a 'naked eye' (or even daylight) supernova. Rigel would be the first. Genetic effects require a certain radiation density, hence the 1kly limit.

And no, this event is not related to the 2012 disinfo campaign.

[Anonymous No.4530109]

>>4529799
There are historical accounts of both naked eye and day time supernovae.
And why did you say it had exploded. You made a claim you can't possible back up.

[Anonymous No.4530123]

>>4529799
>We never had a 'naked eye' (or even daylight) supernova.
Lrn2crabnebula

[Anonymous No.4530159]

>>4529179
pretty sure that's a computer generated image of the universe, the same one they use in those stupid comparison photos of your brain cell and the universe

[Anonymous No.4530164]

>>4530159
It's not true, right?