rorymultistorey

4 hours ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

Just read your post after looking into studying variable stars. I have to ask..... are you saying you are going to privately hire a 1 m newt in Chile for a number of days (actually nights) to observe a stars variability?

I bought a Euro millions lottery ticket today and the jackpot is 17 million. How many nights would I get for that?

Marv

come on Marv you'll be able to buy the bloomin observatory for that.  I'm getting my time for free bc the owners want the publicity. 

3 hours ago, Lockie said:

Well our atoms were probably forged in the same second gen star 😉

I'm pretty sure we're not the same person and I'm hoping Mrs biscuit can tell the difference😂 lockie posted the link to my vid. I just jumped on the thread. 

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

Was reference to that professor saying that there is no single sentence that was reproduced correctly - a joke or it actually happened?

yeh. I sent him a transcript of the interview - and I messed up the first sentence (I was diagnosed as dyslexic at school but  that's no excuse) and he sent that exact reply back to me word for word.  I said that we didn't speak in grammatically correct sentences but then decided to  not to push it as he is a genius and I didn't want to waste his time.  Nothing in the film that I say about t'hooft is different from what he says onlione or in his published papers except that I am continually trying to relate things to the pixel metaphor in the hopes that the audience will follow what is going on. t'Hooft is revolutionary in his ideas. A great shame he pulled out. The whole scene questioning the collapse of the wavefunction (the bunny scene)  was based around what he had said.

40 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Do you mean you have a proof of this equivalence, if so that's truly impressive or perhaps you mean it has qualitatively has similar features? 

If you have a proof can you provide a reference as I would live to try to understand it.

Regards Andrew 

Wolfram says so. At 35.33 he mentions it briefly but I don't unpack it. It is in my rushes, the long interview which only my patreons have access too (sorry but I'm trying to figure out how I can make videos full time so making certain things available to my patrons who pay a £3 a month is one experiment I have to monetise the channel).  I will try and explain it. His computational model of the universe is mostly unpredictable... in the same way that the weather is unpredictable. But there are some mathematical structures in his model which are predictable. These mathematical structures align exactly with quantum mechanics and special and general relativity. He also suspects string theory will find a home in his model. He's only figured some of  this stuff out in the last few months but here is a video by him from the spring if you are interested: https://bit.ly/WolframProjectLaunch

3 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I agree progress has stalled with string theory just playing mathematics.

I hope this new approach is testable as hinted at in the video.  I think our big problem is that our current theories work very well in the size and energy ranges we can probe.

We have very little or no new experimental data to push for new ideas.

Yes our current theories are not perfect but they work very well. Doubts about Dark matter and energy are important but have reasonable possible explanations. Dark energy could just be small residual curvature of space time just as normal matter is a small residual after the creation of the CMB radiation.

As an aside yes Vulcan was wrong but Neptune was right!

Regards Andrew 

 

 

Very true but one important tweak Wolfram's theory keeps quantum mechanics and general relativity just as they are.

Hey Chris thx for posting my video and spreading the word. And I'm very pleased you liked it. Its very hard to make a video about the universe accessible to the lay person.  I am not a prof - -obvs- and there is no way on gods earth that I'm not going to get a barrel load of it coming at me after making a video like this. And in all honesty I don't mind if I do. At least it means the brain boxes are watching it. And if we're going to change the status quo then we need the brain boxes to start to think in new ways. Big picture is that the fundamental physics community has become blinkered and every one of the profs I spoke to ( hoffman didn't comment on this actually) seems to think progress has slowed. T'hooft actually used the phrase "going round in circles and everyone citing each other" but i can't put his words in the vid unfortunately. So if anyone else is reading and watches the video please say what you think and don't mind me.  

1 hour ago, davhei said:

Have you looked at NGC 2261? R Monocerotis is a T Tauri variable inside a reflection nebula. I’ve only observed it visually but found it quite beautiful.

Cheers bud I'll look into this one too

On 19/10/2020 at 11:13, Martin Meredith said:

Hi

Looking at my charts, there are a few reflection nebulae from the van den Bergh catalog that are marked as variable:

a few in Cassiopeia: VdB 5, VdB 7, VdB 9

also VdB 24 in Perseus

and VdB 34 in Auriga

I haven't observed these myself but they might be worth checking out.

cheers

Martin

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1966AJ.....71..990V

hey Martin, many thx I'll look into these. Current favourites for doing a time lapse image are: hubble variable nebula and corona Australis because they change relatively rapidly but hubble variable nebula is quiet at the moment...

37 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Search " observing variable nebula nick hewitt " the pdf may be what you want.

Regards Andrew 

 

very cool thx Andrew 😉

Hi all,

Help needed!

Nasa took this great timelapse video of RS Puppis...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geAjufAYAow

I'd like to try and do something similar in one of my astrobiscuit videos (www.youtube.com/astrobiscuit). Does anyone know of any other variable stars embedded in reflection nebula?

I was thinking of using telescope live's 1m newt in Chile to capture the variable star over a period of days and seeing if the varying light from the variable star altered the nebula.  Any help most appreciated. Tricky one I know.

Many thanks Rory

thx fellas glad you liked it... not sure spending a long time making a quality video wins out over someone just yapping on youtube but I'm gnna find out.

Hi,

This video is intended to be for someone who is thinking of buying their first scope but isn't sure which one is best.  I would love it to be a good jumping off point for discussion and I hope some wise heads will wade in and answer questions and offer alternative opinions. Thx to astrostace and helena's astro and deddy dayag for contributing. I fear I'm going to have my head down making my next video as I'm currently astrobiscuiting full time (or at least till my loan runs out!). So all help  much appreciated. 😉

https://youtu.be/Na-aBhc_gTY

15 minutes ago, Philip R said:

Who... me! 😜

As I never, ever cock up I'm going to run with the idea that i was actually just randomly and spontaneously  thanking white dwarf.  He is a very fine, nay one of the finest moderators (oh dear... where is that Glenmorangie?)

@white dwarf thank you most appreciated 😉

3 hours ago, happy-kat said:

If that's $25 dollars a day that's enough to feed more than one person

Ha... did I mention I like single malt. Also $25 is the most I've ever earnt in one day thanks to this video being so popular.  So  it seems 18000 views turns into $25. It'll probably go back down to the regular which is more like $25 a month. 

14 minutes ago, gorann said:

Maybe you should take the AstroBackyard guy with a grain of salt. He often seems to be selling products sent to him and he loves them all. Some of the episodes really reveals a lack of knowledge, like the three episodes where he starts imaging with a Celestron EdgeHD 11". For SCTs and especially for that rather big one you really need off-axis guiding and he was using a finderguider, the most inadequate guiding equipment you can use for that scope. Not surprising, the stars in his final image were far from round and it all looked very fuzzy. In the middle of one of the EdgeHD episodes, he suddenly shows the new Canon EOS Ra that has nothing to do with anything else there. In a later episode he reveals that it was sent to him from Canon, so not purchased by him (he did not reveal if he got to keep it).

Yeh i hear you but i think even astrobackyard admits he's not a pro. I'm not a pro either. I think mr backyard is good at processing but in all honesty i haven't watch that many of his vids. In general   i have sympathy with anyone trying to make a living out of astro youtube videos. Im actually going take some more time off work to make some more.  Currently im earning $25 a day from adds.  Enough to feed me but not the rest of the family and certainly not enough to pay the London mortgage.  

40 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

You know what Hollywood actors say: Never work with children or animals!

That bunny could sell bat-burgers in Alabama...

Olly

Maybe I shoot from London and you shoot from your gorgeous pad. Ha target PLEASE!!!! 

Yeh a lot of people have been experimenting with smart phones including me, I've bought some orthoscopic eyepieces which I think will work well with phones ... I did do a very cheesy video about shooting jupiter with a phone and a beanbag! I found recording the video of Jupiter with a relatively  low compression  "cinema 4k "app was essential.  Also I'm tempted to try and take the lens out of my knackered HTC phone and use the lensless phone  directly on the end of a telescope - no eyepiece required.  As always many plans  but no time...

here is the CHEESY video. (FYI I did take the optics out of the newt before chucking it around - I was trying to get more views with this little stunt but it didn't work!)

On 08/05/2020 at 12:57, Knight of Clear Skies said:

You're conflating two separate things I'm afraid. For measured criticism of the state of fundamental physics I'd recommend reading Sabine Hossenfelder. She talks here about the problems in the physics community, and has some suggestions on what problems should be investigated. But Dark Matter is a very strong theory without any direct detection of particles, in much the same way the Higg's Field was before the Higg's Bosun was detected. Similarly, neutrinos were first proposed in 1930 but not detected until 1956. String theory and super-symmetry may well turn out to be follies but Dark Matter is a fully scientific theory. (It's actual nature could be quite different from the weakly-interacting particles we imagine, but its effects a large scales are well understood.)

It's not mud slinging, it's a observation that MOND theories struggle to explain. Why would gravity work radically differently in a nearby dwarf galaxy compared to others?

Hey Knight of Clear Skies. Thx for that. Very useful. I will be reading with interest. I'm not going to say anymore  bc I don't want to go off the topic of the thread. 

On 05/05/2020 at 20:57, ollypenrice said:

I think it's time for the imaging snobs to fight back! I'm terrific looking (no really, I just checked) and have a great sense of humour (seriously) and you can't fault me for the fortune I've sunk in imaging gear. I just need a good director and video editor to help me reassert the virtues of intemperate spending. Sponsors, anyone? Roll up, roll up...

😁lly

Funny. Thx for watching Olly. I've been reading and learning from your posts for some time. Lets do an astro fight off! Obviously you'll get extra points for being so goddam handsome 😉 

41 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Thanks for putting together the video and some good ideas for further ones there.

A word of caution here. Dark matter is is a very strong hypothesis with multiple lines of evidence pointing to its existence, such as the rotation curves of galaxies, distribution of mass in galaxy clusters and oscillations in the Cosmic Microwave Background. We also know of one barely-interacting particle, the neutrino, which can pass through a light year of lead. Competing theories, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, utterly fail to explain the motion in dark-matter dominated galaxies such as the Draco Dwarf. It's the simplest hypothesis that explains the evidence, it's certainly no folly.

There is a careful balance to be struck between open-mindedness, there are unsolved problems in cosmology and we certainly don't understand the full picture, and credulousness.

Red Dwarf thx. I hope you take my thoughts in the right spirit. (This is good practise for the video if it ever gets made)

I think Physics needs a kick up the behind. Over the last 20 years a lot of money and experiments been pumped into dark matter. Thousands , probably tens of thousands of  research jobs depend on dark matter being the leading theory. Millions of pounds worth of grants rely on it too. Cern was suppossed to prove dark matter. Now the physicist are  saying that they need another 10 years (long enough to be paid until retirement perhaps) to prove that dark matter actually exists... which is exactly what they said 10 years ago. Particle physics  could well be a victim of its own fantastic success.  In the last twenty years you'd be forgiven for believing that the answer to every new physics problem has to be a particle. There are other theories like MOND which get nothing like the cash or research time which dark matter gets and yet MOND  believers claim their model works more elegantly over a broader range  of galaxies than dark matter. A case of a small band of physicists  battling the establishment like David versus Goliath. (TBH I don't know about draco dwarf galaxies but the MONDS team have mud to sling at the Dark matter crew too) Surely if Dark matter was true Goliath would have stomped all over the MONDs team by now.   My broader point is that physics promotes the status quo which is why the greatest breakthoughs have  not come from the establishment but from outsiders...  

So am I be credulous... or is the system closed minded? And does that closed mindedness come from a desire to protect jobs and funding. I have the right to question. It is after all our money that pays for dark matter research... and string theory and other theories that seem to be banging their head against the wall.

Hi all thanks so much @Super Novafor sharing my vid. Finally got one to fly... only taken 3 years!!!! Really appreciate the nice comments. I hope you understand that this video is aimed at getting more people into this terrific hobby and that I had to cut a lot of stuff out bc unless you are a true geek (which lets be honest everyone here is) collimation and modding the camera is a bit boring. However I am currently in negotiation with Mrs biscuit thinking about taking some time off work to make some more vids. I'm not a big fan of my job and I'd love to do this full time but money wise its just not feasable.

Next video plans are...

Ultimate Shot of Mars : Brits vs Yanks - I was chatting to a chap who had a 24" newt in his garage. Annoyingly I can't find his email but I'd love to joint forces with someone and  resurrect a big old newt and try and take on some of the guys with Big Newts in the US. I know they'd probably win - better weather / better declination (in florida anyway) - but it would be fun. 

Astrophotography shoot out part 2: we now have an amazing mount courtesy of Peter Napper and i'm planning on pimping up a 6 inch newt (in fact the newt I chopped - the Edmund Scientific - has an extraordinarily nice f6 mirror (I now regret cutting it down. I know. please don't rub it in). I think that mirror with a smaller secondary will be good. Possibly upgrade to a 6D if I can find a cheap one. In a way this video will be refractors vs reflectors.

The Answer to Life the Universe and Everything - I got in touch with Dr Stuart Clarke and it turns out we have something in common. We don't like where physics is heading at the moment. We think dark matter and dark energy are follies and I think that  we're missing something fundemantal about the way the Universe works. I'd like to meet the rogue scientists who are trying to find out what that thing is. 

various small vids for geeks  - to modify or not to modify, free post processing, astrophotography with your mobile phone etc

anyways any other ideas most welcome.

Take care all and thanks again.

Very good post thank you. 🤗

I tried to show people what space objects looked like through x7 binos in this video.  I used a 135mm lens and a apc sized sensor to get the same field of view as the binos but found that the experience with your eyes is quite different to what the camera records due to the human eye's incredible dynamic range. 

Is it possible to look at bricks satisfactorily without the tripod?

Looks good. Mafrotto Fluid head nice. I bought the cheaper Neewer version  with a heavy duty fluid head which has broken. The plastic legs were too flimsy. I have a monopod so will absolutely use that with my 7x50  binos. Great idea.

Seems the Helios Binoculars are popular. I'm guessing there is not a huge amount of difference between the lightquest and the apollo versions?

Interesting that you went for 15x version. I believe there is a lower magnification version. I'm starting to think that binos are really best at looking at star clusters and bright objects rather than dim nebula and maybe this is why observers prefer to have the higher magnification models rather than the widefield light bucket versions.

Anyways thx for the reply