(Sorry I had the wrong video up. Fixed)These pictures of the Pillars of Creation were taken 19 years apart by different telescopes, with each image capturing a unique perspective.
— NASA (@NASA) March 5, 2026
On the left, @NASAHubble shows more thick dust. On the right, @NASAWebb peers through the dust to show more stars. Which is your favorite? pic.twitter.com/2QLApmSE1X
March 5, 2026
The Pillars of Creation.
Posts
18 comments:
These pictures of the Pillars of Creation were taken 19 years apart by different telescopes, with each image capturing a unique perspective.
Don't fret, the camera adds several billion years to everyone's photo.
A different artist touched up each picture.
“The Pillars of Creation.”
To me it looks more like the hand of Satan, reaching up for Newsome. There might be a common thread here today….
The old Hubble Pillars shot is an iconic Hubble photo -- it demonstrated the potential of space telescopes. The new one is technically a lot better, but not so much "pillars" now. The James Webb has delivered plenty, plenty, plenty of more stunning and new content than this.
Artistically, yep, the hand of Satan or the Infinity Gauntlet of Thanos from X-Men.
I suspect the difference is not the age, or necessarily the camera/satellite that took the picture, but the data processing/aesthetic choices in adding the color, which almost certainly is not natural.
If real, on the other hand, the latter photo seems to show degradation arising from the passage of time, much the way Newsome doesn't look quite so handsome and charming as he did back in the day. Entropy is a bitch.
Definitely the second picture. Very cool.
I wonder how much of the apparent motion of some of the stars is due to parallax and real stellar movement over 19 years.
The James Webb collects longer wavelength light and does a better job of peering through the dust clouds which scatter light of shorter wavelengths.
All that stuff? Those magnificent, multi-light-year structures?
All of that would be considered very high quality vacuum in a lab on earth. There's practically nothing there, but there is a hell of a lot of it.
All of these pictures are filtered. Not sure what they are trying to accomplish with the "What do you like better?" clickbait.
I like the photo on the left (the Hubble version), which makes the space creature look more substantial, not so gassy. His head and shoulders are to the left, with an upraised right paw. The camel-like look of his head doesn't quite fit with the rest of him, but that's just my earth-centric view of things, which is out-of-place, out there. Or maybe it's an Iranian leader, raising his hand to ask what just happened to his chest, which has gone missing for some reason. Damned Israelis!
The sky on the right—because it shows more stars.
The nebula on the left—because it looks like a grasping hand.
Looks like the Hand of God. I prefer the one on the left -- the one on the right looks "fake" to me
The Webb is more descriptive, the Hubble is more artistically appealing. The Hubble gives the pillars a glowing aura that gives it life and transmits feelings of awe. Give me the Hubble .
The one on the right. It shows more galaxies.
I’d never seen this pic before, in either version. My first glance, though, made me think of the popular Christmas silhouette of the Three Wise Men on their camels as they made their way to visit the Christ Child.
Climate change. In a million years there won't be anything left of the fickle Cosmic Fingers of Fate.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.