Interesting Items...

sine24 said:
I know for a fact that BH is not "ignoring" me.

ooohhh, that must have hurt trolltrog
Click to expand...
You were not addressing BH in that post so the only thing hurting is my ribs from laughing so hard at you. I already stated that I prefer to watch you have a meltdown than hit ignore. Your ever growing anger and frustration in like nectar to me so answering your purile questions serves no purpose at all where as poking you with a sharp stick makes you dance for me :D
 
Just so everybody knows: as the large majority of a certain person's output appears to be merely pollution and quibble without foundation, I've taken the reluctant decision to "ignore" - which means the forum software no longer automatically displays any of their content (repugnant or otherwise) in my browser, I'm not tempted to argue, and he/she will no longer be given technical advice from me... even when it might have been appropriate. I am very happy to have my views challenged and to debate them, but debate is reasoned argument and not simply the repeated imposition of a contrary opinion.

Regarding my re-post (from elsewhere on the web) of the Jupiter + Saturn image, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a real image, and I am in no doubt that similar photographs will appear in the astronomy press very soon. What might appear confusing is that the telescope was controlled from computer software - that's normal these days, even in the amateur world. Hardly any traditional wet* photography goes on, electronic imagers are used so naturally the imaging is controlled by computer and the results (not a simulation) are seen on a computer screen in a software application. This could be for a telescope in the back yard... or on the other side of the world (which means telescope operators can now work 9-5).

* Wet - from the need to develop and fix traditional film or glass plates using liquid chemicals.

The video contained on the web page I linked to shows various states of exposure and image processing. In some frames, the exposure is much greater thus showing more satellites. There is an art to astronomy image capture and post-processing: the brightness range can be so great it would be impossible to show all relevant detail in one image without some "enhancement" - so the actual image presented is rarely as you would see it, it is actually a representation that reveals the science, but hopefully without looking false or becoming misleading. (The "black hole" image from last year isn't something you could even call a photograph - it is more akin to Computer Aided Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging than photography, having been reconstructed from subtle differences in the received signal at receivers across the globe.)

Modern electronic imaging available at a price point even a moderately serious amateur can afford has revolutionised astronomy. Professionals have to focus on the specific things their research funding has been obtained for; amateurs can patrol the universe as they want, and are more likely to come across interesting things by accident (and then the professionals can swing into action). Electronics offers the possibility of almost eliminating the atmospheric shimmer - not by having incredibly sophisticated and expensive laser-guided adaptive mirrors, or by launching a telescope into orbit, but by gathering images at video rates and then rejecting frames which have too much atmospheric blur (there are often "islands" of good seeing in a sea of shimmer). Once the sharp frames are identified (by software), they can be "stacked" to accumulate the available photon captures into a decent image.
 
Last edited:
RobH1 said:
Pass, call BH.
Click to expand...
Yes, brought out by over-exposing the planetary discs (a better job could be done in post-processing by merging a good exposure for the satellites with a good exposure for the planets. Too busy at the mo, but I'll put names to them later. That might be Titan (faint) at 10 o'clock from Saturn.
 
Last edited:
Black Hole said:
Just so everybody knows: as the large majority of a certain person's output appears to be merely pollution and quibble without foundation, I've taken the reluctant decision to "ignore" - which means the forum software no longer automatically displays any of their content (repugnant or otherwise) in my browser, I'm not tempted to argue, and he/she will no longer be given technical advice from me... even when it might have been appropriate. I am very happy to have my views challenged and to debate them, but debate is reasoned argument and not simply the repeated imposition of a contrary opinion.

Regarding my re-post (from elsewhere on the web) of the Jupiter + Saturn image, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a real image, and I am in no doubt that similar photographs will appear in the astronomy press very soon. What might appear confusing is that the telescope was controlled from computer software - that's normal these days, even in the amateur world. Hardly any traditional wet* photography goes on, electronic imagers are used so naturally the imaging is controlled by computer and the results (not a simulation) are seen on a computer screen in a software application. This could be for a telescope in the back yard... or on the other side of the world (which means telescope operators can now work 9-5).
Click to expand...

Check out the "explanation" blurby blurb when all I required was a simple min:sec on the video.
 
Photo taken 21/12/2020
Time: 19.28.07 same as UK
Lat/long: 37 07 12.69N 008 34 43.71W

From my friend: "I took the photo with the camera on the outside table, propped up on books to the right elevation and wedged so there’d be minimal blur."
 
E5A09B12-A21B-495F-BA9A-F711CA97988B.jpeg


Ephemerides for 2020-12-21 19:30. The four Galilean satellites of Jupiter plus Titan (Saturn) are the only ones likely to be captured under the circumstances, so anything else is most likely a star.
C5CD35A9-2C8C-448A-BE89-E9438E05ACD1.jpeg


80CA7D41-501E-4CDE-A5D0-5D4C8CA8611A.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Why are Jupiter's moons approximately along the ecliptic and Saturn's are at about 90 degrees to it? Is this correct?
 
You're looking at Jupiter essentially edge-on, whereas Saturn is tipped towards us. The satellites orbit in a similar plane as the rings, and describe trajectories which would appear as ellipses in similar proportion as the rings - it's just coincidence that Titan and Hyperion appear to create a diameter.
 
Ah yes. Thanks. Took me a while to get my head around it. The only time I'v ever seen Jupiter's Galilean moons (quite often through my binos) they have been in a straight line through Jupiter and about aligned with the ecliptic as in the above PIC.
Must look more int planitary axis tilt cf ecliptic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top