Qualia

Thanks for the kind note, Mark. Quantum stuff later!! It's tricky enough getting my head around classical physics, let alone figuring the mockery quantum mechanics makes of it.

Following on from Part I: http://stargazerslou...8-qualias-blog/ Part II – Space Introduction Before we reach Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity it is necessary to allow Maxwell a voice on our stage, for his own discoveries would play a significant role in Einstein’s own radical insights. Maxwell – Setting the Stage Building on Faraday’s concept of Field (that which exerts a force beyond its physical presence), Maxwell found that electric and magnetic fields were in fact a single entity and he called this entity the electromagnetic field. He discovered that this field travelled at exactly 1,080 million km/h or 671million mph which was also that of the speed of light. Surely, then, he concluded, light must also be part of the electromagnetic field. But with this discovery of light's speed, we find ourselves back with the age old problem. As we have seen, velocity only makes sense if it is specified in relation to another object. The only reason I say a car is going 65 mph is because it is relative to me, a stationary person on Earth, for example. However, put that speeding car in a huge plane going at 1,000 mph and I will see the car as moving faster, a whole 1,000 mph faster! This occurs because the speed of the car is added to the plane’s speed. So, if we say light travels at 671 million mph, what is the reference, the benchmark? Light is speeding in relation to what? Maxwell had a brain wave. Ocean waves are carried by water. Sound waves are carried by air and we say sound waves travel at 767 mph only because we are referencing them to still air. So, light must also be carried by some kind of substance. Just as I suspect Newton borrowed from Aristotle’s notion of the Prime Mover to give persuasion to his Absolute Space, Maxwell did the same by borrowing from the philosopher the term Aether; the stuff of which Aristotle believed celestial bodies were made. Again, Aether was permanent, omnipresent and unchanging, another god-like figure, and light travelled relative to it. Aether? If I go for a swim toward a wave, the wave will approach me more quickly than if I am swimming away from it. The same is true for sound waves. So, by the exactly the same reasoning, the quicker I move through Aether, depending on which direction I decide to take, light should travel faster or slower than the stated 671 million mph. The problem was there was no such evidence of this. The famous experiment conducted by Michelson and Morley in 1887 found no such thing. No matter what they did, light continued to travel at its regular 671 million mph. A Young Einstein Ever since he was a young lad, Einstein had asked himself a rather bizarre question: what would a light wave look like if I could follow it at exactly 671 million mph? According to classical physics and the relativity of velocity, that light wave should appear motionless, so I will be able to reach out and cup for myself a handful of light stuff. However, for one reason and another, Maxwell’s own discoveries prevents light from ever appearing stationary. So why the paradox? What's going wrong? It took Einstein about ten years to work out this bewildering question, and at the age of just 26 came forth with the theory of Special Relativity, a theory so startling and radical in its ramifications that it changed the entire course of classical, pre-quantum physics... Part III will try to cover some basic aspects.

I don't assume that I'm an expert on any of this, so if there are pertinent mistakes in what is written, please correct me. The idea of these posts is simply to give a very rough and very shoddy idea of non-existential Space and Time (for existential notions we've really got to deal with Heidegger, Foucault et al). Hopefully these entries will be short enough to deal with in one sitting but give a general idea of the discourse conducted over the last few centuries. If it isn't working, or you think this kind of thing is redundent, please, let me know. Okay... Part I By the seventeenth century, it was already understood that velocity (the rate of motion in a specific direction: distance divided by time) was a relative concept. From your perspective the hot-air ballon is drifting by, but from the ballon’s perspective, you are going by and both are equally valid points of view. Velocity, then, can only be specified in relation to another object. We all move in relation to other things. It was also understood that velocity, if it is constant, generally goes unfelt but if there’s a sudden change in speed / direction then there is acceleration and acceleration is felt. Newton’s Absolutism Newton was one of the first to ask himself what are the meanings of these concepts we've just been using such as velocity, motion and what do they refer to? To try and answer these questions he came up with a rather profound thought experiment. Imagine there’s a bucket of water and the water is still, and yet as the bucket begins to spin the water’s surface becomes concave and remains so even as the spinning bucket slows and stops. But why is this so? Why does spinning water take this shape? That’s easy: because it is spinning, water is somehow pressed against the side of the bucket. But what does spinning mean? Spinning with respect to what? The bucket? No, because when there is relative motion, the water starts out as flat, becomes concave and when the bucket stops spinning the water continues to spin. So the bucket cannot be the reference for the motion of water. The stuff around us, space? Well let’s take the imaginary bucket out to space, what then would serve as the reference, the something with respect to which the water is spinning? Well, for Newton, here lay the answer. If it wasn’t the bucket it had to be Absolute Space. Absolute Space was the reference. When an object is at rest or in motion, accelerating or constant, it is so with reference always to Absolute Space. But what is Absolute Space? For Newton it was god-like: eternal, permanent and unchangeable. Leibniz’s Relationism Newton’s contemporary, Leibniz declared that all this talk of some god-like Absolute Space was nonsense. He asked himself, if Newton is right where is the universe within his Absolute Space and how are we going to know whether that given answer is true or not if we are unable to detect space or changes within it without access to objects? Indeed, how can we say space even exists without implicitly referring to other things? Unable to find significant answers to these questions, Leibniz declared that space simply did not exist. Without objects space has no independent meaning or existence. Space is merely a useful language term used to indicate where things are in relative position and movement to each other. Space, in other words, has no meaning beyond providing a semiotic sign for discussing the relationship between things. Mach’s Relationism Mach raised another interesting question: why in Newton’s theory was velocity relative to another object whereas acceleration was fixed to an unmoving absolute? Might it be that Newton was mistaken and acceleration was also relative? Imagine you’re floating in the skies; if you begin to spin the distant earth will no longer appear stationary. You will feel a force on your body and you will witness motion. But if you’re in absolute empty space, Mach argued, and you start spinning you are not going to feel any force on your body and you won’t have any distant object to reference your motion. Thus, how are you able to know whether you are spinning or not? It follows that Leibniz was on to something. In absolute empty space there will be no conception of velocity or acceleration because there will be no reference to your motions. In empty space motionlessness and spinning will be indistinguishable. So, if there is no notion of movement in empty space, there cannot be any justification for Newton’s absolute space. But we’re still left with a problem: how can we explain the bucket’s water shape if we throw out Absolute Space? The solution was that if in empty space there was no concept of spinning or non-spinning, then in our universe, a universe with matter, the force of motion, velocity and acceleration will be relative or proportional to the amount of matter/mass in the universe. The force felt by acceleration, for example, arises simply due to the influence of all the matter in the cosmos. The more matter there is, the more force you will experience. Thus, Mach’s universe is the universe of Leibniz. Velocity and acceleration are relative terms and space does not enjoy some independent, god-like existence but is relative only to matter in the universe. And here the story will rest until Part II when Einstein will come along and radically transform both the absolutists’ and relationists’ centuries old arguments and critique.

Thanks for the note, Carl. I am the one who should be truly grateful and thank you for reading the entry. To be honest, the chalk sketches look cool in the flesh, but when scanned into the computer do lose something of their 'quality'. I will have to figure what to do about this - whether it might be better to make a pencil sketch and invert the colours or find myself some digital camara. I think it's a great idea of yours to try those observing tricks. When it comes to an evening's viewing, for example, I tend to take it slow. Over the two hour alotement, I'll have a plan of either one DSO and one double and general wandering about or a planet and one double and wandering and I will try to stick to that for the evening. Nothing rushed. With M 27, I spent two sessions just looking at it and then picked up the chalk brush. I really hope the skies clear for you, but then at the moment it's not really all that good. Unless you can go to bed really late, the night skies this month are just too bright. I've pretty much called it a day for DSOs for July.

Thanks for all your support, Mark.

Thanks, Midjam. Let me know how you do and please keep me informed of your own observations.

M 27 - The Dumbbell Nebula General Observations Messier discovered M 27 in 1764. Some twenty years later, William Herschel recognised its peculiar shape. His son, John, called it the Dumbell and the moniker stuck. In the 19th century, Huggins observed that it wasn't composed of unresolved stars as was originally believed, but through the new science of spectroscopy, realised M 27 was in fact a gigantic cloud composed of luminous gas. Along with M 57, the Ring Nebula, M 27 is one of the most observed deep space objects (DSOs) in ameteur astronomy and there is an obvious reason for this: it is a giant of a planetary nebula with a high degree of surface brightness which takes high magnification remarkably well. What you are seeing is essentially the remains of a dying supergiant star whose decomposition is creating boundaries of chaos where hot, ionized gas is pushing out onto older, cooler gaseous clumps. M 27's inner section is made up of huge structures of gas and dust somewhere between 20 to 60 million kilometers in size containing the matter of about 3 or 4 times the mass of Earth. These superstructures - for want of a better word - have sufficient density to cast opaque shadows onto the lighter, cooler outer regions giving the nebula that peculiar 'dumbbell' shape. The total diameter of M 27 is estimated to be about 6 light years across whose boundary is said to be expanding about 2 to 3 inches every century, whilst its inner region at about 6 to 8 inches. M 27 is between 1,150 to 1,350 light years away with an age of around 9,000 to 10,000 years, making it a relatively young nebula. M 57, for example, is about twice as old. City Observations The first time I stumbled upon M 27 I had to double check the late night sky to make sure I hadn't found a solitary, wandering cloud; after observing smaller, fainter, nebula structures, I wasn't prepared for the sheer size of the thing. At low magnification it appears as a large, fuzzy cloud-like patch of an indeterminate nature, a blob, so to say, but with the aid of the UHC-S Nebula Filter (Baader), its famous two lobe structure is brought out. I have included sketches both without the filter (on the right) and with the filter (on the left) which will hopefully give some idea of what is being viewed. I thought it was also a good idea to include these two sketches for it may help future astronomers decide if the filter is worth its price or not. Note how the nebula is brought-out with the filter, how it takes on a more defined structure but with a notable reduction in star content. It follows that the UHC-S will be pretty redundent when hunting down nebulae. The sketches were made using white and grey chalk and brush for the nebula itself, whilst a finely sharpened, white charcoal pencil was used for plotting the stars on the black paper.

Thanks, Cantab. Just back from time away, so this week will get back into practice and see if I can hunt down M 14.

Thanks for the note, Tom. Sounds banal but take things as they come and you'll find that patience and persistence tend to win out in the end. I recall that it took me a good couple of nights to find the giant that is M 27. Qualia

M 29 - An Open Cluster M 29 is an unassuming, rather lacklustre open cluster made up of about seven bright stars some 3,740 to 7,000 light years away in the constellation of Cygnus and anyone with a 4" telescope or larger may wonder how it was ever included in Messier's list of objects not to be confused with a comet. The answer can be found in Messier's own notes where he writes of the star grouping as "seen...in the form of a nebula", perhaps highlighting just how poor the optics and lenses were in Messier's own time. I imagine M 29 would be a rather spectacular cluster if it weren't for a thick cloud of interstellar dust blocking and diminishing the star light by as much as 95%, meaning that many of the stars in the cluster are dimmed by as much as 5 magnitudes. The stars themselves are thought to be young, very hot, and luminous, indicating that the cluster's age is between 4 to 6 million years old. The four or five brightest stars are type B, blue supergiants each with a luminosity of about 160 thousand suns. It is estimated that there are over 200 stars in the cluster but on an average seeeing night in the city (mag 3), you should be able to make out about a quarter of this number with ease. Observation Notes and Sketch The problem with sighting M 29 is twofold: i) it is so unassuming, you're not too sure whether you've found a Messier object or just a rather pretty star pattern. ii) this area of Cygnus has quite a rich field of stars due to being just outside the Milky Way. Thus it is quite tricky to know where the cluster begins and ends. At about 40x the resolution of M 29 into individual stars is easily achieved. The seven of eight brighter stars have a block-box-trapezoibal appearance which does give M 29 a rather austere, mechanical like feel. The sketch was made using relatively thick black paper, a white charcoal pencil to mark the stars and then touched up indoors with a tippex pen for the brighter stars. It was scanned into the computer and tidied just a little with the free software Paint.Net.

Thanks for the great message, Nightfisher. It would be nice to see the dso with a larger aperture, but as it was I was quite happy to find her. Just for the record, the sketch was made using chalk and a brush for the dso itself and the stars were plotted with a tippex pen for the brighter ones and a white charcoal pencil for the dimmer objects.

Thanks for the tip, Mark. I will certainly give it hunt and will let you know how I did.

NGC 6826 - Caldwell 15 - The Blinking Nebula General Notes Planetary nebulae are the final stage of middle to low mass stars. They are essentially gigantic shells of gas surrounding the nucleus of a dying, progenitor star and one of the best examples of this kind is perhaps NGC 6826. On a cosmic scale, planetary nebulae are considered relatively ephemeral phenomena, lasting anything between 30 to 100 thousand years from formation to complete dissipation. It is possible that our own sun will become a planetary nebula after exhausting its own supply of fuel in about 5,000 million years time. It is believed that about half the star's mass of NGC 6826 has already been ejected to form the nebula. This disintegration of the dying star causes cosmic wind of newer particles to collide with older material before it forming that hot shell we see from Earth. Planetary nebula have quite a high surface brightness, so are generally easy to find in urban domains and with a small telescope can often be mistaken for an unfocused star. NGC 6826 is often referred to as the Blinking Nebula yet the name does not refer to the nebula itself but more to the nature of human vision. Our eyes have their least sensitive light spotting cells in the centre of the fovea. Thus, staring at this object makes it appear to dim or even disappear. If you look away using averted vision, it comes on again and seems brighter. So, playing around with looking-at, looking-away, the nebula appears to blink. NGC 6826 is about 2,200 light years away in the Cygnus constellation. It is located south of the spectacular double star 16 Cygni (not included in this sketch). At about 35x it appears like a blurry, unfocused star and at about 50x is easily resolved into a curious cloud-like object. Observations from the City & Sketch It took a couple of nights to discover the nebula, due in part to a misreading of the star atlas, finding myself lost in a maze of double star systems and relatively bad seeing conditions. I have read that NGC 6828 can sometimes appear with a dim, neon green of grayish-blue hue, but I think one needs larger aperture and darker skies to draw out these features and will be absolutely necessary to spot the nebula's dying central star. Once sighted at about 35x, it appears as an unfocused star and with a little more magnification it takes on a cloud like appearance with quite a significant amount of internal brightness. I found it useful to use a low band nebula filter. In my own case an UHC-S but an OIII will also suffice. When trying to identify an object like NGC 6826 in an urban setting, you ought to repeatt observations with and without the filter, increasing magnification as you go. With the filter in place, stars become less apparent but the nebula gains a higher level of contrast enhancement. It was useful to follow through this process right up to about 140x. I found that with direct vision the nebula's brightness was clearly reduced and oftentimes would disappear into the darkness. With averted vision it would come alive again, almost as if some playful being was transmitting a slow motion light-code for us to decipher. The Cheeky Winker I noted in my sketch pad, understanding that its message will probably remain a mystery for all time. The sketch was conducted without the filter in place. I think the rather pretty double star at the top of the sketch is 61 Cygni.

Thanks for the support, chaps. I'm gradually working through the list and bit by bit (over the next few weeks) will post up some of the sketches and results. Stuart, I figured that viewing from a city centre, using a 4" refractor in the middle of the summer does play significant odds against me, right? So, I don't understand the necessity of a rush with galaxies; what's the hurry with the likes of M81/82? They're around all year, so I might as well try for them come winter when the city skies are darker and city folk go to bed earlier.

With the 4", the UHC doesn't produce wonders-of-wonders but at about 55x to 83x, it certainly does bring out the nebula, and I reckon with a little darker skies and/or a little better aperture, it would be a fine purchase. I have read a little on OIII filters and, yes, I agree, they do seem to have some very good write-ups. My only concern is that it might be a tad aggresive with my current set up. What I figure is that a narrow band, like the UHC, has the advantage of working on the largest number of objects from a city and does make a difference to the nebula being viewed. As a second filter, the OIII will be excellent, but understanding that it will probably dim the field of stars quite significantly.

M 94 - Spiral Galaxy A Bit of General Knowledge M 94 is a spiral galaxy some 15 to 17 million light years away from us. It has a diameter of about 56,000 light years and contains some 60,000 million stars. In this sense, M 94 is considered a generally modest galaxy but it does have some rather special qualities. Like M 82, M 94 is a Starburst galaxy, which means it is in the process of creating stars. It appears that high density stellar waves are compressing cosmic matter into protostars at an exceptionally high rate. Although face on, the galaxy highlights some kind of spiral structure and is said to resemble an onion, being made up of four complex ring-like regions. The first is a central region of ancient red stars estimated to be around 10,000 million years old. The second area is a starburst region giving itself over to star formation. This is followed by another ring-like area made up of more ancient red stars and another starburst region. Finally, there's been observed a very faint outer ring. In this sense, M 94 is a rather rare galaxy whereby two interstellar cosmic waves are creating stars simultaneously in two very distinct regions. Observation from the City M 94 has a special place in my records for it was the first galaxy observed with the Tal 100rs. With the scope on that particular Spring evening in the city, M 94 appeared at first like a bright, luminous planetary nebula, but resting with her for a little while revealed a brighter core surrounded by a nebulous like halo. A rather pretty sight, especially as framed by the surrounding stars and with the use of a Telrad and decent scope finder, shouldn't cause much problem to find in an urban setting.

Hiya Mark, If a Messier is located and that's a big if, I have found that the sweet spot in the city is with a mag between 50x to less than 100x. Most of the doubles I'm coming across are split with the 25mm or 18mm. If I recall correctly, I think even Polaris was easy to split at 50x. The diagonal came with the Tal package. I don't know anything about it, but it works fine.

Oh, and before I forget, there was spotted the usual sporadic meteor hurtling across the mesophere but of more curious origin was a single, small point of white light flying relatively slowly in relation to the meteors. I followed it for a wee bit across Cygnus until it disappeared. I have no idea what was seen, but I imagine it was a plane.

12 - VI : Before the clouds rolled in had a very clear night from about 1.30am to about 4am, almost to magnitude 4. Had time to split Albireo which is such a beautiful sight and will need to be sketched in the future. I did a quick sketch of M13, played around with my nebula filter on M57 and then moved into Cygnus, one of my favourite constellations, so full of stars and bright colours. M29 was easy to find and another night I will try to sketch her, but this evening I was heart bent on finding NGC 6826, if only to see what the filter would look like with her. Alas, I got lost. It's a shame really for I realise now I must have been only a whisker out, but on a plus side, I could have sworn I could see whisps of the milky way through the eyepiece and found a most beautiful three in a row star system. The first star, the larger of the three, was a pale blue, the second split into reddy-yellow star and whiter pale, and the last one remained a whitish pale colour. Have no idea what it was, but it made my evening. Finished with the moon and did a very rough sketch of three craters which I will look up tomorrow and see what was spotted. All in all a great evening and next clear night will try again for the blinking planetary.

Hiya Marki, I've thought about the height and yes, I do think it helps just that little bit. The city I live has an elevation of about 200 meters (over 650') which is about 5x that of the Manchester area, over twice that of the Bristol area, and 8x that of London. Add to this the height of the ten storey building block and the roof, and I imagine I'm over 250 meters above sea level. What also enhances seeing conditions (with the EP that is, for just by the naked eye I don't get much better than 3 to 3.5) is the fact that the city is very, very dry but what probably counters this is the general temperature during the summer months (evenings generally don't drop below 25º) which is probably causing unseen city-haze. With this particular sketch I didn't use a filter but my girlfriend has recently bought me a Baader UHC-S Nebula filter and I tried it out the other night. I've only used it once, so a proper review will have to wait, but what I found with my small 4" was that it 'blacked' out the stars yet enhanced the nebula, bringing it forth, so to say. I realised that in i) better seeing conditions (it was a cloudyish June evening in the city with almost full-moon) and ii) a bigger aperture (but not that much bigger would be necessary), this filter could be of some interest to the urban stargazer. The only downside is its cost and the fact that it does block out a lot of light from the beautiful star patterns. Qualia

It'll be a pleasure, Marki and thank you for your kind support and interest. I don't expect to finish the list - what with seeing conditions, LP and the relatively late nights necessary for some of the viewing, but it seems a good target to aim for. I will also try to put up some sketches, if and when they happen.

General Plan I've decided to include my general observing plan for the warm summer months ahead because I feel it will not only help direct my own observations and studies but may also help other folk trying to decide what urban wonders they might be able to try for in the following weeks. The listing information includes Messier objects, NGC wonders, and Double Star gems which I think are worth taking a shot at even if the possibility of success isn't 100%. Unless directed otherwise the listing will be set out as follows: Target Name: Constellation; Type; Level of Subjective Difficulty 1 (relatively easy) to 4 (very difficult). The Messier List M 13: Hercules Globular Cluster 1 M 92: Hercules Globular Cluster 2 - 3 M 29: Cygnus Open Cluster 2 M 39: Cygnus Open Cluster 3 - 4 M 5: Serpens Globular Cluster 2 M 16: Serpens Open Cluster 1 M 10: Ophiuchus Globular Cluster 2 M 12: Ophiuchus Globular Cluster 2 M 19: Ophiuchus Globular Cluster 2 M 62: Ophiuchus Globular Cluster 2 - 3 M 107: Ophiuchus Globular Cluster 2 - 3 M 57: Lyra Planetary Nebula 1 M 56: Lyra Globular Cluster 3 - 4 M 27: Vulpecula Planetary Nebula 2 - 3 M 71: Sagitta Globular Cluster 4 M 8: Sagittarius Galactic Nebula 1 M 17: Sagittarius Galactic Nebula 1 M 20: Sagittarius Galactic Nebula 3 M 21: Sagittarius Open Cluster 3 M 23: Sagittarius Open Cluster 2 - 3 M 22: Sagittarius Globular Cluster 3 - 4 M 25: Sagittarius Open Cluster 2 - 3 M 28: Sagittarius Globular Cluster 3 - 4 M 54: Sagittarius Globular Cluster 4 M 55: Sagittarius Globular Cluster 3 - 4 M 11: Scutum Open Cluster 1 M 4: Scorpius Globular Cluster 2 M 80: Scorpius Globular Cluster 3 M 6: Scorpius Open Cluster 1 - 2 M 7: Scorpius Open Cluster 1 - 2A Few New General Catalogue (NGC) Wonders NGC 6235: Orphiuchus Globular Cluster 4 NGC 6572: Orphiuchus Planetary Nebula 2 - 3 NGC 6910: Cygnus Open Cluster 2 NGC 6866: Cygnus Open Cluster 3 - 4 NGC 6819 Cygnus Open Cluster 2 - 3 NGC 6826 Cygnus Planetary Nebula 1 - 2 NGC 6834 Cygnus Open Cluster 3 - 4 NGC 6830 Vulpecula Open Cluster 3 - 4 NGC 6823 Vulpecula Open Cluster 2 - 3 NGC 6302 Scorpius Planetary Nebular 1 - 2 NGC 6543 Draco Planetary Nebular 3 - 4 Double Stars: The Little Gems The listing information will be as follows: Target Name: Constellation; Folk Name Kappa Herculis (k Her) - - - - - Hercules - - Marfik, Marfak, Marsic (The Elbow) Alpha Herculis (α Her) - - - - - Hercules - - Rasalgethi (Head of the Kneeler) Alpha Scorpii (α Sco) - - - - - Scorpius - - - Antares (The Anti-Mars) Beta Scorpii (β Sco) - - - - - Scorpius - - - Acrab Beta Cygni (β Cyg) - - - - - Cygnus - - - - - Albireo (The Hen's Beak) 61 Cygni - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cygnus - - - - - Bessel's Star Epsilon Lyrae (ε Lyr) - - - - -Lyra - - - - - The Double Double Zeta Ursae Majoris (ζ UMa) - - - - - Ursa Major - - - - Mizor & Alcor Alpha Ursae Minoris (α UMi) - - - - - Ursa Major - - - - - Polaris, (The Pole Star) Alpha Canis Venaticorum (α CVn) - - - - - Canes Venatici - - - - - - Cor Caroli Epsilon Boötis (ε Boo) - - - - - Bootes - - - - - Izar & Pulcherrima (The Veil & The Loveliest) Mu Boötis (μ Boo) - - - - - - - - Bootes - - - - -Alkalurops Gamma Delphini (γ Del) - - - - - Delphinus - - - - - Job's Coffin I hope this helps in some manner of ways :bino2:

M 57: The Ring Nebula A Little on Lyra The constellation Lyra is rather small and faint from the city but it is easy to find due to being home to Vega, the 5th brightest star in the northern hemisphere. Interestingly, around 12,000 years ago, Vega (Alpha Lyrae) served as the Pole star and will again if mankind can survive another 12,000 years. Strummed like a guitar rather than plucked like a harp, the lyre is an ancient stringed instrument dating back to around 3,000BCE. According to ancient Greek mythology, Hemes, the son of Zeus, invented the lyre by stealing a sacred cow from his half-brother Apollo and stringing the cow's intestines across a tortoise shell. Evidently, Apollo wasn't too happy with the act but forgave his half-brother in return for the instrument. Sometime later, Apollo gave the lyre to Orpheus who became a master of the lyre, enrapturing not only his fellows and the gods of nature but even Hades himself, the dark lord of the underworld. Orpheus met his own violent end when female followers of Dionysus tore him apart limb from limb but in remembrance of this musical genius, Apollo convinced his father Zeus that the instrument played so majestically by Orpheus should become a heavenly constellation and thus, the lyre of Orpheus rests now between Hercules and Cygnus. A Little on M 57 Placed between the exquiste multiple binary star Beta Lyrae (Sheliak - The Tortoise) and Gamma Lyrae (Sulafat - The Shell) is M 57, a small but perfect smoke ring structure. It is about 2,300 light years away from us and was probably created when a red giant ran out of fuel to burn and its shell of gas, which could no longer be gravitationally held to the dying star, was blown away, pushed outward by hot and fast stellar winds from the red giant. M 57 is known is a planetary nebula, not because it has anything to do with planets, but because William Herschel, a great astronomer from the late eighteenth century, saw these nebulae, these great spherical clouds round like the planets. M 57's outer layer of gas is about 2 to 3 light years in diameter whilst its darker core is about 1 light year across. It is estimated that this outer ring, that halo we see, expands at about 50 km/s which I imagine from Earth would look like its growing about an inch every century, and all this nebula activity probably began some 10,000 years ago. Today, all that's left of that original red giant is a dense, white dwarf star, the final evolutionary state for a star whose mass was never high enough to become a neutron star. Observation Notes In my 4" refractor from a city roof top, M 57 looks as if some cosmic wonder has puffed a single smoke ring into the heavens. The halo offers the curious affect of a solid ring of misty light whilst its interior, that central vacuity, black like deep space. Nevertheless, if you remain with M 57 for a while, if you give yourself time, it soon becomes apparent that it is not ring like in shape but oval, tilted from northwest to southeast from its centre and that its central core begins to take on the appearance of feebler, lighter kind of absolute darkness.