saac

1 hour ago, Moonshed said:

My point about being a step further removed from reality is actually a very basic observation. When we look through the eyepiece we are seeing reality, I think that is clear enough and unarguable. When we look at a screen we are not seeing reality, what we are seeing is an electronic representation of reality, I think that is also obvious and unarguable.

As I have already said a number of times each has its uses.

When we look through the eyepiece we see a representation processed by the brain. I accept that this is the common definition of reality.  I agree each, and every form of observation has its uses.

Jim 

8 hours ago, Moonshed said:

Hi vlaiv, thank you for supplying that information, it’s a big help.
It seems to me though that unless we stick with eyeball to eyepiece observing then as technology continues to improve we are, step by step, moving further and further away from reality. What we see on screen is enhanced, yes, we can see more detail, but what actually is it are we looking at? (This could get a bit deep). The difference in seeing an object sharp and crisp in the eyepiece is far removed from that very magnified and detailed image on the screen. 
Both have their place obviously, it depends on what you want to achieve, but if it is only to observe I feel that you can’t beat the experience of looking through the eyepiece. 
We are at the stage where some members do all their observing remotely, the scope is out in the observatory and they are indoors in the warm watching the images on a screen. Yes, it does have a certain appeal, but apart from selecting your own target I feel you may as well be watching a television program about astronomical images, there being no connection between you and your telescope other than electronically.

Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.

Not sure about  being a step further removed from reality unless we view at the eyepiece. The brain after all enhances the image, photons being converted to electrical signals and then processed by the brain.  We may well argue that what we see with our "eyes" does not itself reflect reality.  That said , it is our reality so I guess such a debate is academic.   I can argue though that having spent time setting up, calibrating, configuring and tweaking my setup then I do feel a genuine connection with the image I view on a screen remotely  just as I may if I look through the eyepiece.  In the professional world I'd be surprised if many professional astronomers have ever used telescopes that even have eyepieces.  I guess it really depends on what you want to take away from the pastime and that is the great thing about the hoby it offers such a range of different levels of interaction.

Jim 

On 22/12/2020 at 08:56, maw lod qan said:

Turned out the clouds stayed away.

I was expecting them to be a little closer together. Even with my eyes, I could easily see there was two planets.

I wonder as the evening progressed it more to the West in the USA if they did get a little closer?

One of the better close up photographs I've seen , well done. They look splendid  

Jim 

Best wishes to you Ron and really good to see you back.  Here's to a better year ahead for all of us.

Jim 

Just seen this , they do say location location location .  Amazing photograph, great thing to see at end of this year for sure  

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap201220.html

my favourite https://www.facebook.com/APOD.Sky/photos/3230831097021087

Jim

I think those two blobs are exactly as you suspect Pete , two of Jupiter's moons.  Love your photograph all looks nice and sharp. You must have found one of the few locations in the UK that had a clear sky. Ironically the sky here is now beautifully clear but earlier it was a blanket of cloud. 

Jim 

This evening's BBC 6 O'clock news featured a filler article on the Conjunction  explaining how astronomers would be treated to a wonderful sight . They explained nicely how rare and beautiful it is was where and when we could see it . They then showed a photograph from the USA ! The UK I think is totally covered in cloud  

Jim

2 hours ago, Dantooine said:

Yeah this is my version of Astro photography. 

It will sharpen up in post processing

Jim 

16 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

Reading all these comments about a fabled star, and all the discussions regarding what the star could have been, the real date Jesus was born, the actual date the star was seen and where...and so on, I am reminded of Carl Sagan and his amazing “Pale blue dot” speech, it puts things into perspective.

Its nice to get a handle on these things.

 

I'm hopeful for a framed copy of the pale blue dot speech this year - one of my favourites    Another is Sagans  "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." 

Jim

Just realised that if I followed that star from that position the heading  would lead me to one of the largest whisky distilleries in Scotland !  Maybe there is something in this after all  

Jim

Here's my offering, fairly cloudy to start with but it quickly cleared; glad we went out although it was really windy at the top of Tarvit hill.  My two girls acting as 2/3 of the magi   Not quite in focus, I blame the remaining 1/3 of the magi!  Fingers crossed for good weather tomorrow, we'll give it another go.

Jim

Seems like Kepler favoured 7 BC but in June.  Maybe worth a read to get us in the festive  mood  http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1937JRASC..31..417B&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf

It's really a shame that the BBC have that  Sky At Night episode on the Star of Bethlehem locked down ; they examined a number of candidates and from what I remember of it it was well done :

"Chris Lintott reconstructs the night sky over Jerusalem at the time of Jesus's birth, discovering a once-in-a-millennium conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter that was first suggested as a cause of the star by the great astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604.  Armed with his telescope, Pete Lawrence searches out the features of the night sky we can observe today that may provide clues to the origin of the Star of Bethlehem.  Professor Alan Fitzsimmons explains why the sudden appearance of a comet in the night sky has always been seen as an omen of great events on Earth.  Dallas Campbell goes in search of the historical and archaeological records that can shed light on the identity of the star. Finding Babylonian tablets in the vaults of the British Museum and ancient Chinese texts that record all the unusual events in the night sky 2,000 years ago, including a bright new star that appeared for 70 days in the year 5BC. "

Jim

5 minutes ago, johnturley said:

I've just used Sky Map Pro to look at positions of Jupiter and Saturn in December 4 BC (thought to be the most likely date of the birth of Jesus), and found that Jupiter and Saturn weren't close at all in 4 BC, you have to go back to 7 BC to find when they were close, and were at their closest at around 15 December that year, although nothing like as close as this year. 

Incidentally the close conjunction occurred in the constellation of Pisces, which if I recall correctly has some astrological significance.

John 

7BC is good getting closer; what about 6BC . The hunt goes on   

Jim  

7 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I am not being gloomy in anyway whatsoever. Just making a technical observation within the scope of the thread.  Of course enjoy the tradition. Certainly appreciate the current and completely unrelated (to the Star of Bethlehem) planetary conjunction. Did I suggest people shouldn’t? 

Not at all Ouroboros it was just a general comment.  Sometimes I think we (collective we) can over analyse things like this when we would be far better standing back and just admiring the beauty of it. For me the beauty also includes the very human narrative and tradition that is associated with it . 

Jim 

12 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

It all seems a bit odd that these wise men from the east saw a star in the east and followed it to Jerusalem, which it should be noted is west of where they supposedly set out from.   From Jerusalem they followed the star to Bethlehem, which incidentally is south of Jerusalem, till it came to rest over the place they were looking for. Now we all know neither stars nor planets ‘come to rest’ over anywhere. So whatever it was it wasn’t a conventional celestial object. So speculation as to whether it was a star, supernova, comet or planetary conjunction is irrelevant because taking the description at face value it was none of these. 

Yes but again stars were and still are used in navigation irrespective of not settling anywhere and guiding travelers over  far greater distances:      The danger is taking a  2000 year old story at face value and holding it to be legally tight.   Let's just enjoy the  tradition and get out their and spot it.  There has been enough gloom around this year, the conjunction should put a smile on our faces  

Jim 

1 hour ago, Whirlwind said:

This assumes that any such event actually occurred at the time.  It is more likely (in my view) that it became a myth from an event that did happen but was probably uncorrelated.   Hence it is quite possible that the star being referred to was observed by Chinese star gazers - it is just that it was much later or much earlier than the mythological timeframe.

Given that it is such a simple story that would have been of no peculiar significance to those close to it in time and that it survived for over 2000 years then I am inclined to to think it is likely (in my view) that it reflects a historical event. I agree that the myth surrounding it has been caught up and confused by tradition, medieval art and literature. For example as Nigella pointed out, the adoration of the Magi most likely happened some time after the birth.  Some bible historians believe the adoration would most likely have happened as much as 2 years after the birth to make sense of the story of Herod's massacre on the innocents (male child up to 2 years old) .  Personally, I don't believe  that any star/conjunction/planet/comet combination, whatever it was, would have necessarily had needed to be visible nor followed for the duration of the magis travels. More likely whatever it was appearing in the later stages of their travels  - dialogue and interactions with local communities taking over  as they neared the end.  How do you convey that over 2000 years of changing perspective and development of a global church through changing trends in art  and literature?  You simplify the story !  Just as we have been told throughout the pandemic - keep the message simple and people will remember it !  I'm out again tonight to try and photograph it, forecast looks we may be cloud free - not looking forward to climbing that hill again though   

jim

Just as about difficult as I had finding it this evening - it kept hiding behind the clouds, just as well I wasn't a magi  

Jim 

14 minutes ago, Nigella Bryant said:

I think one of the obvious but neglected part of the story about the birth of Jesus Christ and the star of Bethlehem is as the story unfolds from the biblical context is that the Magi saw the star rise in the east, they started traveling west following the star arriving in Bethlehem not to find Jesus Christ as a baby in the manager but in a house. It was approximately six months later. The star was then in the West. Thus six months for the star to rise in the east to west. The Magi didn't actually turn up at the stable according to the biblical accounts in the new testament. It therefore couldn't have been a comet, a meteor or a conjunction of planet's as these would have been moving faster than a fixed point of light that the Magi followed for quite some time.

I think you are right Nigella, the notion of the adoration of Christ by the shepherds and magi was popularised by artists and poets.  I was always taught that the visit by the magi happened some time after the birth by as much as a few years.  Makes identifying the star even more complicated  

Jim

You did better than me!  Went out to local high spot to get some elevation and took a few shots before they permanently disappeared behind cloud .   Both shots out of focus   I'll try again tomorrow.  

Jim

I suppose  a different story would have to be written for our modern times;  give it a few years and any future winter conjunctions will be sponsored by the likes of Coca Cola, Pepsi or Elon Musk - while we all partake in the great celebration of divine commercialism just because well, that's what we do!  If the cosmos does not cooperate with a timely display then no doubt messrs Musk and co will be able to fire up "Star of Bethlehem 2"  - wi-fi enabled of course.   

No,  I prefer the story that captivated popular culture for over 2000 years and I welcome with a smile this particular conjunction  as it brings a much needed uplift to a horrible year !  My only hope is that the weather obliges to allow me to view it    Our very own BBC Sky At Night produced a Christmas episode a few years back which featured the historical  candidates for the star of Bethlehem.  I've used the episode in class as a Christmas filler and it's been well received.    It's worth a watch for those interested although the iPlayer showing it as not available at the moment - BBC timing come on people      https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06t3wst

Jim 

15 minutes ago, shropshire lad said:

You used to be able to go to the small post office there and have them frank the stamps with their location rubber stamp... so "Posted in Bethlehem" would be on your christmas cards (for a small fee to charity) but think they stopped it.

Wales' Bethlehem prepares for annual Christmas post rush - Wales Online

 

 

 

 

They still do it - BBC news article about them yesterday or may have been the One Show!  The official Post Office closed but the residents man a pop up post office in a village community building over the run up to Christmas. 

Jim

1 hour ago, Moonshed said:

It’s always puzzled me how it’s possible to “follow” a star across a country and then have it lead you to one specific dwelling that it stops directly over. How can you tell which house is directly under a star? All this before sat navs!

And yet for centuries our Royal Navy did exactly that but across oceans !   Indeed up until the demise of the RAF's Nimrod  maritime aircraft it provided its Navigator with the facility (periscope) to allow for a star shot to be taken as a redundancy navigation method.  Maybe the magi were just fed up with sat nav backing them up a cul de sac  

Jim

16 hours ago, JamesF said:

I didn't have predation in mind, certainly.  I was thinking more that the two somehow got "squidged together" and found symbiosis worked nicely for them.

James

No worries, the predation comment was referenced against the op's comment about the external predator.

Jim

16 hours ago, Greggy-spaceboy said:

probably had something to do with energy efficiency

Most likely a favourable accident. If it turned out advantageous then natural selection standardises it until the next favourable adaptation. 

7 minutes ago, JamesF said:

I agree, Jim.  My biology isn't that hot to be fair, but isn't this somewhat similar to the way that some organisms "absorbed" others that became mitochondria, to the benefit of both?

James

Good point James  Although I don't know the respective evolutionary timelines but the theory goes that the mitochondria were the descendants of bacteria engulfed by other prokaryotes and somehow survived and ended up being incorporated into the cytoplasm and DNA.  Not sure if that was predation or just good luck but then ultimately natural selection decided it was an advantage and , well, here we are    

Jim