Hubble Spots a Galactic Powerhouse

Galaxy NGC 3254

Hubble Space Telescope image of spiral galaxy NGC 3254. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, A. Riess et al.

This image shows the spiral galaxy NGC 3254, observed using Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). WFC3 has the capacity to observe ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared light, and this image is a composite of observations taken in the visible and infrared. In this image, NGC 3254 looks like a typical spiral galaxy, viewed side-on. However, NGC 3254 has a fascinating secret that it is hiding in plain sight — it is a Seyfert galaxy, meaning that it has an extraordinarily active core, known as an active galactic nucleus, which releases as much energy as the rest of the galaxy put together.

Seyfert galaxies are not rare — about 10% of all galaxies are thought to be Seyfert galaxies. They belong to the class of “active galaxies” — galaxies that have supermassive black holes at their centers that are actively accreting material, which releases vast amounts of radiation as it is accreted. There is a second, far more active, type of active galaxy that is known as a quasar. The active cores of Seyfert galaxies, such as NGC 3254, are brightest when observed in light outside the visible spectrum. At other wavelengths, this image would look very different, with the galaxy’s core shining extremely brightly.

16 Comments on "Hubble Spots a Galactic Powerhouse"

  1. Babu G. Ranganathan | June 15, 2021 at 8:32 am | Reply

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works doesn’t mean that no one designed or made the airplane. And just because science can explain how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Designer and Maker behind them.

    Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells from raw materials such as amino acids and other chemicals, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No human observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing and irreversible net energy decay, even in an open system). Even a hypothetical oscillating universe could not continue to oscillate eternally! Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity shows that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson, even if it existed, would not have created mass from nothing, but rather it would have converted energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because science teaches us from the First Law of Thermodynamics that natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing.

    The supernatural origin of the universe cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.

    Gravity may explain how the order found in the precise and orderly courses of thousands of billions of stars is maintained, but gravity cannot explain the origin of that order.

    Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It’s one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

    Even the father of Chaos theory admitted that the “mechanisms” existing in the non-living world allow for only very rudimentary levels of order to arise spontaneously (by chance), but not the kind or level of order we find in the structures of DNA, RNA, and proteins. Yes, individual amino acids have been shown to come into existence by chance but not protein molecules which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence just like the letters found in a sentence.

    Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.”

    An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

    If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

    It’s interesting that Carl Sagan would have acknowledged sequential radio signals in space as evidence of intelligent life sending them, but he wouldn’t acknowledge the sequential structure of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) as evidence of an intelligent Cause. Read my popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles:


    Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (This site answers many arguments, both old and new, that have been used by evolutionists to support their theory)


    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

  2. Another BS from Nasa. Lol

  3. Careful – your ignorance is showing.

  4. Fascinating,this shows how little we know about our universe, respect to all trying to unravel this mysteries.

  5. Shawn William Small | June 17, 2021 at 11:09 am | Reply

    What God does with the power of thought, science gives us that same power. Made in his image only.

  6. Wonderful, interesting article. I guess they can’t all be long and detailed.

    Lol to the philosophy spam. I think of it this way. Whether or not there’s creative design, unproovable, we still have much to learn about that design or structure, so perhaps instead of speculating on matters and beings probably as far beyond us to understand as airplanes are to dogs, we should just get on trying to prove hypotheses that we actually can test with our modern technology and understanding.

    Not saying to speculate is a waste of time, it is personally and spiritually satisfying and worthy questions, it’s mostly unfortunate that testing the slightest bit of them is impossible, currently. But they are, and we should do what we can to live and embetter ourselves here and now. It’s enough already.

  7. The Dreaded KGB | June 17, 2021 at 6:32 pm | Reply

    In other words, not exactly settled science. Sounds a lot like global warming. Something else we know very little about.

  8. William Looney | June 17, 2021 at 6:56 pm | Reply

    Babu G., u speak about religion like u are absolutely positive to everything ur saying, as if ur not contradicting urself. U say that everything has a beginning and an end… But u talk as if that makes sense but when speaking about an intelligent “God” that came from NOTHING and lives ETERNALLY, that it is rational in that case? Science is our understanding of the universe, and tho u talked about how it’s proven that something can’t come from nothing, u still try speaking as if “god” doesn’t need to be supported by that? That’s IRRATIONAL! U are well informed, however u let that information overshadow ur reasoning based purely off opinion. That’s where u go wrong because it’s opinions that do not support science or our understanding of it. Hypothesis do, and that’s FAR DIFFERENT. I could go on and on about how wat u are saying not only doesn’t make any sense, but how many times u contradict urself while talking about it… Opinions lead go knew ideas based off those opinions; however, when u try turning hypothesis into FACT, it has to have concrete proof and evidence towards that fact so it’s can be explained. Until then it is limited as ONLY AN OPINION, and u seem to have that confused. As I said I could go on and on, but that was my biggest issue so I wanted to make sure I spoke my OPINION on that aspect of it. U seem very smart… That just gives u less of an excuse for being so opinionated and pushing other opinions aside like u are doing… “When u know everything, u can never learn anything… For u already know everything, so why would u want to learn anything else?”

  9. Feedmem orespace | June 18, 2021 at 1:30 pm | Reply

    Composite.i mean they tell you in one line this is not a real picture.. Then go on and on specifically about said fake picture.. going into detail..smh and we eat it up dont we?
    Whats the REAL image look like. 😂

  10. Autumn Leonard | June 18, 2021 at 2:09 pm | Reply

    Wtf even is this comments section? NASA literally just shared a picture of a galaxy, and everyone feels the need to call BS, discuss god, and call out global warming?

  11. To the people saying this is fake because it’s a “composite” photograph, you need to look up what that means. This age is absolutely a real image, just made up of multiple images layered on top of each other.

  12. Human #2040550605 | June 19, 2021 at 10:04 am | Reply

    Composite means a combining of two or more things. An example would be using two pieces of glass one coloured red and the other blue resulting in a purple coloured glass. This is a NASA image that is made with two images, one on the infra-red spectrum and the other of visible light spectrum. Resulting in the image seen above.

  13. Hillary Clinton | June 19, 2021 at 12:24 pm | Reply

    Inshallah brothers!
    The Islamic state of Iraq and Syria has decided to join this comment section

  14. Let’s just read and think about the science

  15. Sam Rosenthal | June 21, 2021 at 6:32 am | Reply

    Babu, my goodness! So much scientific misinformation in order for you to justify your point of view. Seems you know very little of the laws of thermodynamics, (Yoy claim that the law of entropy demands the irreversible decay even in an open system. Wrong. It specifically describes a closed system.) general Relativity (you mis-interpret its basic tenets) and the evolution of the universe. And, if something cannot come from nothing, please explain quantom foam. Or, better yet, please explain where your God came from. To give the argument that god always was explains nothing. So if the universe was created by god, who or what created God?

    I notice you say nothing about quantom mechanics, one of the most successful scientific theories of all of history.

    You claim that chemicals could not have developed into organized patterns, and eventually, life without some guiding hand, when science shows us that all chemical processes become more complex over time.

    You claim that no-one was around to witness the birth of the universe so how could we know what occured. Surprise! Because of evidence such as the cosmic microwave background radiation and other sources, we can accurately know what occured back to negative 10 to the 47th seconds of the big bang. That is pretty darn close to the zero point of the universe.

    You contradict yourself trying to convince us of god’s existence while discouraging us from the independent occurance of the universe. You attempt to convince us of a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. The problem with supernature is that it really f@#ks up the equations. You cannot say on one side 2+2=4 while saying on the other side, “a great miracle happened and now 2+2=5”. You know why? Because they don’t EQUATE.

    I could go on but all you are trying to do is justify an existence for god in the realm of science.

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.