Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep24_banner.thumb.jpg.56e65b9c9549c15ed3f06e146fc5f5f1.jpg

Marvin Jenkins

Members
  • Content Count

    786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marvin Jenkins

  1. You captured a galaxy. Might not be an award winning shot but a ‘galaxy’. Think about it..... how many ordinary people have seen a galaxy? They are clearly visible in the sky, like globular clusters etc. 99 % of the population have no idea that what is in your picture exists, except in a text book. It is now up to you to improve your framing, and use the gear you have to great effect. You are at the beginning, but no longer a beginner. Keep up the good work, the night sky is yours for free. Marv
  2. Is it just me or are there just too many circles in this photo? There is supposed to be a telescope in there somewhere but I cannot see it.
  3. All I can say is that my Nan told me the afternoon at Bembridge IOW when I was a kid was a great way of getting winkles for my toothless grandad. They were probably trying to get me drowned . M
  4. You can keep all these products, just leave me with bourbon. Binocular vision guaranteed, funny how marketing people don’t put that on the bottle. M
  5. I actually quite like the eight point star personally, adds a bit of star super sharpness. Might just be newt owner bias M
  6. Firstly great picture Emil, really impressive. Paul M I know just what you mean about education and learning from books having a disconnect. I am going to try my hardest to remember to call it by its full name from now on. A year ago I showed a non Astro friend my first Great Orion Nebula picture. He is not into Astro but very aware of the subject. His first reaction was “So that’s what it really looks like”. Before I got a scope I just thought it was a star, but my friend already knew different with the naked eye! He didn’t know why, but knew it was not as defined and sharp so had independently come to the conclusion that it was different. Goes to prove that pictures like Emil’s can really complete a persons idea about something out of there reach. (not saying my was as good as the original OP) Marvin
  7. I am pretty sure I have seen a picture of two 20” dobs joined together side by side like a bino viewer. I vaguely remember it being Italian. Marvin
  8. Love it. Can’t tell you if you have taken it too far as I do not know. I just think it is a great image showing a vast difference in what is out there. Well done. Marv
  9. Seriously, your picture is an inspiration. I took up astronomy perfectly in time for the last close approach of Mars, which was wrecked by the Mars global sand storm. Now it seems Mars is perfect but I cannot see it. My goal was one view of the polar cap. If I miss it again... I have your picture to know it was possible. Marv
  10. A giant thumbs up from me. I look at your picture with envy as I have solid horrible weather when Mars is at best. I personally was just hoping for an EP view. But your picture is a great example of what can be seen under ideal conditions, well done. Marv
  11. Welcome back, best decision you have made. The night sky is happy to have you back and good luck and clear skies Marvin
  12. WOW. And I thought ‘I’ needed to get out more.... Marv
  13. I understand where you are coming from and your reply is logical. However, in your second paragraph you write 'we didn't have the data that we have now' a few weeks ago you challenged me to calculate the density of quasars in the background field and you had QSO's at 5 to 600.000 from Wikipedia. I had that figure at 12.8 million from NASA. If just a few weeks ago your number from the Sloan Survey was different by 12.2 million give or take I will stop worrying about my maths skills, and you are comparing the knowledge of 'we' in the now to ARP in the 60s 70s and 80s. One last question. What happens in scientific fields when problems and problem objects that do not fit the generally accepted cosmological model occur? Are they written off as a statistical blip and presumed to disappear? When you say "picking individual cases is a week basis for challenging ideas" where does that leave scientific observation? Where would that have left Copernicus? The accepted model of his day was as you know, 'we' are at the center of the universe. In his time that was the 'Generally accepted cosmological model'. So, find an annomally, find a few, find a few more, but if they are in the minority and do not conform then they are discounted! Like I have said on numerous occasions you may be entirely correct, but you can't say for sure, and it doesn't make it look more likely that you are correct by discounting other ideas. Marvin
  14. Hi Gfamily, the reason I said that is because I can find so little scientific enquiry with regards to Arp’s claims about questionable red shift (except his own). I have spent a great deal of time looking for published papers examining his claims. I find untold quotes, and comments with regards to ARP being wrong in websites to do with this subject. I am struck by how resistant many sources are to anything that questions Big Bang theory. It is not like saying the mans name three times will make him appear! Furthermore, no matter how much we do this, I always end up on the end of a reply saying “ARP was wrong, red shift proves it” which is like saying you are right because you are right. You maybe right, but at the end of the day Big Bang is still a theory, not a fact. Marv
  15. So envious right now. Nothing but storms, clouds, rain and a combination. M33 is my target right now. Thanks for reminding me what it looks like. Well done on the capture, keep up the hard work. M
  16. I use my D3100 for a bit of light DSO (Messier objects) and find the best ISO to be around 800. 1600 is not out of the question at all but show up light pollution in your area. As you are shooting Milky Way, why not make a lense hood out of bedroll material. Single shots on a tripod need to be free from shake so use the soft shutter option on the camera body. Better still, buy an intervalometer (fancy timer) so you can take multiple shots without touching the camera, very cheap, and ten or twenty pictures stacked will be a giant leap forward. Just so you know what these rubbish hands can get from your kit with a static tripod and one exposure, Comet Neowise.
  17. Have you tried turning off noise reduction? Any of the stuff for daytime terrestrial pics like rangefinder, turn it all off. You may already, but Skipper Billy advice shooting in RAW (NEF) for us Nikon users will make a big difference.
  18. Firstly, Well done. Just getting out there and giving it a go deserves a big thumbs up. I think you have done rather well. You have captured a portion of the milky way and captured it with accurate focus (soo hard). So well done. With a 20 second exposure I am going to presume you are on a static tripod? Not some form of tracking mount? You have probably seen lots of amazing images of the night sky on the web. Do not be fooled, they are not cheats, but take a huge amount of planning, effort and sadly expensive equipment. I have the D3100 with kit 18/55 and it is hard. Are you imaging from a dark sky site? The great thing about using a DSLR is that you can experiment and see what you did. Do you know what settings you used to take your photo. If the lense is set on the zoom at 18mm you should have the F number at something like 3.8. You can set those parameters in the cameras manual mode. Marv
  19. Good to hear from you. Thanks for your view on the subject. Despite what might appear to be an ARP ist championing his ideas I am far from that. I looked at some data, saw a problem and started looking. The more I looked the more questions I had. The question which started all this, about my conclusion that a Hubble picture was doctored was quickly answered. Shows I have an open mind after all. I am not an advocate of one theory or another, but I do get annoyed when data, no matter how annoying is ignored. I get more than that, when it is discredited and sidelined for little scientific reason except that it doesn’t fit the current cosmological model. Marv
  20. Thanks for the link Gfamily, I do enjoy our continuing conversation about this subject. I on a personal note I find the contents of the link quite odd and in some places a bit contradictory after our far from groundbreaking collaboration on quasar density per square degree of sky experiment. The choice of wording in the article I find poor. The third paragraph starts with “Even worse” after having ‘not’ proved a persons idea as being wrong and there conclusions incorrect. It is condescending frankly. Paragraph five states that the background quasar seen through NGC7319 is not special. I have raised this issue before about questionable red shift of distant quasars and was told in respect of NGC4319 that the quasar was behind the galaxy and was proved to be, due to a single absorption line. Is there any absorption line data for NGC7319???? Furthermore, why does this article based on fact and observation just suddenly jump to discrediting Halton Arps observations and conclusions in paragraph five? Like a giant Freudian slip. Scared of the man and his ideas? Furthermore, I find the final sentence of Para five self serving and a little disturbing. That the data from the Sloan survey ‘exactly’ shows what was predicted by the cosmological models. EXACTLY! Models plural! So all the cosmological models came up with exactly the same thing to then be proved to the last decimal point by the Sloan survey. No margin of error at all? Must be the most accurate measurements ever taken independently in the history of Science. Breathtaking. One last thing. We have been round the table with this already and this article says ARP underestimates the amount of quasars. You underestimated the amount of quasars when we did the maths. At 12.8 million quasars (My number) we came up with a density of 0.8 quasar per square deg of sky. I sent you details of a paper by ARP c1980 he was using between 6 to 10 Quasars per deg of sky, without using anything beyond 20 mag. Seems the man was damed if he did and damed if he didn’t. Marv
  21. Thanks for the NGC number, I will look that up. Marv
  22. I am all for any group, company, organisation, governmental or otherwise being open to minority views about how the minority are perceived and portrayed in some cases by the group, company, organisation, governmental or otherwise. Proud of your identity is every persons right. The idea that to be incorrectly portrayed as a colour or race from another persons standpoint, that is not correct. Tiny steps like this can seem a little obscure, to the point of being silly. But the smallest steps are the easiest to take and I am sure that NASA don’t want to have a foot in the past as they strive for the future. Marv
  23. I might seem a bit simple but how can an object viewed from two different points using parallax be uncertain? I thought the whole point of parallax was exactly that it was certain because it was fact. Hence my question, at what point does parallax become questionable. Is there a light year distance that parallax is no longer viable? I had for some foolhardy idea that parallax was the first order of estimation to distant objects. Because it is physical, ie seen by the eye from two points at maximum distance from each other. I presumed that parallax would be free from ambiguity as the basic idea has been around for a few hundred years. If we have a huge degree of uncertainty with regards to parallax then where does that leave us with Cephid Variables? I understand that Cephid Variables are the ‘Standard Candle’ with regards to distance and luminosity but if we cannot answer the first question (parallax) then how is the second idea and onward valid? Are there objects in space with confirmed parallax that also have cephid variable data to compare, I would have have thought Andromeda a likely candidate as it was studied by Edwin Hubble. Marvin
  24. Hi, doing a bit of research about distances of objects I am looking at. I wondered if anyone knows the farthest object confirmed by parallax measurements. I am presuming that it is from the GAIA data but I am having a hard time finding a definitive answer. Marvin
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.