APOD
-
M42: Inside the Orion Nebula[^] The sheer beauty of the universe is astounding (even if the image is a little doctored).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
M1: Fubared[^] I hope it's all cleared next week; I'm starting to worry a tad.
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
-
M42: Inside the Orion Nebula[^] The sheer beauty of the universe is astounding (even if the image is a little doctored).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
You know the colours are fake, don't you?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You know the colours are fake, don't you?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I must take issue with your use of the word "fake". The colours shown in that image are accurate. The red is caused by ionised hydrogen emitting, the blue is light from stars embedded in the nebula being scattered by dust. The only enhancement in this image is that the long exposure has captured more light than our pitiful human eyes can manage.
-
M1: Fubared[^] I hope it's all cleared next week; I'm starting to worry a tad.
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
It's been cleared already over the weekend, with help of many civilians and even snow plows from Austria. Also the weather got much better since then, contrary to the sub-zero degrees past weekend it's 14 degrees (Celsius) in most parts of the country. But yeah, it was a major clusterf*ck.
-
You know the colours are fake, don't you?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Did you read what I wrote?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
M42: Inside the Orion Nebula[^] The sheer beauty of the universe is astounding (even if the image is a little doctored).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I've often wondered why the nebula appears compressed in its upper left region. Perhaps there was a supernova long ago whose shock wave compressed it. They say that's what triggers nebulae to condense into new stars.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
It's been cleared already over the weekend, with help of many civilians and even snow plows from Austria. Also the weather got much better since then, contrary to the sub-zero degrees past weekend it's 14 degrees (Celsius) in most parts of the country. But yeah, it was a major clusterf*ck.
I hope it does clean up. We're leaving Thursday week as soon as the girls get out of school. Spend the night in Brussels and then ~15 hours gets us to Budapest. Saturday at home, Sunday down to Kiskunfélegyháza and the outlaws inlaws. Then at some point we'll visit Balatonfüred and make sure the house is still standing. I just want mild weather and not too much rain (or snow). Is that really too much to ask for?
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
-
Did you read what I wrote?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
No, I don't think he did. But seeing has you got the wrong motorway, I'm not surprised. :-D
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
-
I must take issue with your use of the word "fake". The colours shown in that image are accurate. The red is caused by ionised hydrogen emitting, the blue is light from stars embedded in the nebula being scattered by dust. The only enhancement in this image is that the long exposure has captured more light than our pitiful human eyes can manage.
Yes, yes. Astronomical bodies aren't bright enough for our fovea-centralis cone cells. Hydrogen's red, the stars are blue. That's utter bollocks (and that much is true). Some people just lap up any cr@p that astronomers feed them. Others don't[^] Lots of them[^] Of course, some astronomers know better than to lie to us about something that is such obvious bollocks[^]. That way, they can keep their liar-credits for the really big whoppers, like when they spout off about how many planets they've discovered (confirmed total to date = 0), and how many black holes they've discovered (confirmed total to date = 0). Of course, any lie that allows them to keep stealing budget from real science (and from the tiny minority of genuine astronomers) is a good thing, no?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yes, yes. Astronomical bodies aren't bright enough for our fovea-centralis cone cells. Hydrogen's red, the stars are blue. That's utter bollocks (and that much is true). Some people just lap up any cr@p that astronomers feed them. Others don't[^] Lots of them[^] Of course, some astronomers know better than to lie to us about something that is such obvious bollocks[^]. That way, they can keep their liar-credits for the really big whoppers, like when they spout off about how many planets they've discovered (confirmed total to date = 0), and how many black holes they've discovered (confirmed total to date = 0). Of course, any lie that allows them to keep stealing budget from real science (and from the tiny minority of genuine astronomers) is a good thing, no?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
As an amateur astronomer and lecturer of over 25 years experience, I must take exception to your unwarranted attack... I was a member of a team of amateur astronomers who imaged M42 with a specific aim to produce a correct colour image. We used LRGB imaging techniques with filters specially chosen to match the spectral behaviourof the human eye's cone cells, and photometric corrections to make sure the colour balance was correct. Stangely enough the end result was pretty close to the APOD image posted by the OP. "Hydrogen's red, the stars are blue. That's utter bollocks (and that much is true)." Hydrogen is a clear gas, that emits, when ionised, a spectrum predominantly in the red and near IR. I have done this myself as a physics undergrad. Stars emit black body radiation with a peak dependent on the surface temperature. Hot O and A type stars are blue-white, cooler stars are yellow, orange or red. Interstellar dust on the other hand, tends to scatter blue light more than red light, meaning it tends to look bluish. This is the same effect that gives us a blue sky and red sunsets. As for stealing budget from "real" science... Astronomy may not produce tangible results in the short term, but it has been a driving force behind other scientific and engineering disciplines for the last several centuries... Who do you think pioneered the CCD technology now used in digital cameras or the signal processing technology that made mobile phones possible? Both of these,and others, can be linked directly to astronomical research. As for you're claim that astronomers have not confirmed and planets or black holes... Who discovered Uranus, Neptune and Pluto? There are now direct images of planets orbiting several other stars, and very strong evidence for over 300 more. Please get your facts straight before launching into an attack on a group of hard working professionals and amateurs who produce so much with a budget that is a tiny fraction of what other disciplines (such as particle physics) get.
-
As an amateur astronomer and lecturer of over 25 years experience, I must take exception to your unwarranted attack... I was a member of a team of amateur astronomers who imaged M42 with a specific aim to produce a correct colour image. We used LRGB imaging techniques with filters specially chosen to match the spectral behaviourof the human eye's cone cells, and photometric corrections to make sure the colour balance was correct. Stangely enough the end result was pretty close to the APOD image posted by the OP. "Hydrogen's red, the stars are blue. That's utter bollocks (and that much is true)." Hydrogen is a clear gas, that emits, when ionised, a spectrum predominantly in the red and near IR. I have done this myself as a physics undergrad. Stars emit black body radiation with a peak dependent on the surface temperature. Hot O and A type stars are blue-white, cooler stars are yellow, orange or red. Interstellar dust on the other hand, tends to scatter blue light more than red light, meaning it tends to look bluish. This is the same effect that gives us a blue sky and red sunsets. As for stealing budget from "real" science... Astronomy may not produce tangible results in the short term, but it has been a driving force behind other scientific and engineering disciplines for the last several centuries... Who do you think pioneered the CCD technology now used in digital cameras or the signal processing technology that made mobile phones possible? Both of these,and others, can be linked directly to astronomical research. As for you're claim that astronomers have not confirmed and planets or black holes... Who discovered Uranus, Neptune and Pluto? There are now direct images of planets orbiting several other stars, and very strong evidence for over 300 more. Please get your facts straight before launching into an attack on a group of hard working professionals and amateurs who produce so much with a budget that is a tiny fraction of what other disciplines (such as particle physics) get.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Hydrogen is a clear gas, that emits, when ionised, a spectrum predominantly in the red and near IR.
So they just use photoshop to paint portions of dust clouds red.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Interstellar dust on the other hand, tends to scatter blue light more than red light, meaning it tends to look bluish
... And other portions blue. The selection of the portions is entirely arbitrary.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Who do you think pioneered the CCD technology now used in digital cameras
Companies sponsored by the British police force.
TheRealRarius wrote:
or the signal processing technology that made mobile phones possible?
Companies sponsored by the US military.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Who discovered Uranus
A German composer, using his own money.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Neptune and Pluto?
How are close bodies even relevant to photoshopping dust clouds, anyway? They're (damned near, at worst) visible to the naked eye, and clearly visible with mid-range binoculars, so no-one is dumb enough to photoshop them (the tabloid press notwithstanding).
TheRealRarius wrote:
There are now direct images of planets orbiting several other stars
No, there are not. There are wild claims, used to steal budget from real scientists, but no solid evidence of any bodies of planetary size in orbit of any star.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Please get your facts straight
Oh, I've got plenty of facts, backed up by both public record and hard science. The thing is that a lot of them contradict the bollocks that astronomers feed to the world, whilst bucking for acclaim and money.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
TheRealRarius wrote:
Hydrogen is a clear gas, that emits, when ionised, a spectrum predominantly in the red and near IR.
So they just use photoshop to paint portions of dust clouds red.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Interstellar dust on the other hand, tends to scatter blue light more than red light, meaning it tends to look bluish
... And other portions blue. The selection of the portions is entirely arbitrary.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Who do you think pioneered the CCD technology now used in digital cameras
Companies sponsored by the British police force.
TheRealRarius wrote:
or the signal processing technology that made mobile phones possible?
Companies sponsored by the US military.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Who discovered Uranus
A German composer, using his own money.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Neptune and Pluto?
How are close bodies even relevant to photoshopping dust clouds, anyway? They're (damned near, at worst) visible to the naked eye, and clearly visible with mid-range binoculars, so no-one is dumb enough to photoshop them (the tabloid press notwithstanding).
TheRealRarius wrote:
There are now direct images of planets orbiting several other stars
No, there are not. There are wild claims, used to steal budget from real scientists, but no solid evidence of any bodies of planetary size in orbit of any star.
TheRealRarius wrote:
Please get your facts straight
Oh, I've got plenty of facts, backed up by both public record and hard science. The thing is that a lot of them contradict the bollocks that astronomers feed to the world, whilst bucking for acclaim and money.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
So they just use photoshop to paint portions of dust clouds red.
No they don't. I never have and no other astrophotographer I know ever has.
The selection of the portions is entirely arbitrary.
No. The colours are there in the real image. The image is just processed to enhance the colour already there... no more "arbitrary" than applying a sharpen or contrast stretch.
Companies sponsored by the British police force.
Wrong again.. The CCD was invented at AT&T labs in 1969, with the first commercial devices being produced by Fairchild semiconductor in 1974 the same year that a CCD was first used on a telescope. By 1979 Kitt Peak Observatory were using liquid nitrogen cooled chips as the primary detectors. Strangely I can't find any reference to the British police force in any history of the CCD chip...
Companies sponsored by the US military.
Wrong again my ill-informed friend. The techniques that led to the digital mobile phone systems of today werepioneered by radio astronomers at Cambridge and the VLA in New Mexico.
A German composer, using his own money.
Sir Frederick William Herschel, was a German-born British astronomer, technical expert, and composer. He became famous for his discovery of the planet Uranus, along with two of its major moons (Titania and Oberon), and also discovered two moons of Saturn. I'll give you that one... he was a composer as well as an astronomer. In the late 18th century most astronomers were amateurs, with only a few professionals paid for by public money.
How are close bodies even relevant to photoshopping dust clouds, anyway?
They're (damned near, at worst) visible to the naked eye, and clearly visible with mid-range binoculars, so no-one is dumb enough to photoshop them (the tabloid press notwithstanding).So when I make a point that you can't argue, you claim it is not relevant... hmmm... BTW Pluto is magnitude 15... thats 9 magnitudes or 5,000x fainter than the human eye can see!
There are now direct images of planets orbiting several other stars
No, there are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Exoplanets_detected_by_direct_imaging Come on... do your
