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_ep25_banner.thumb.jpg.9e57eee22cad68fd6b67a87befeaa79b.jpg

Marvin Jenkins

Members
  • Content Count

    793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marvin Jenkins

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Thanks for the NGC number, I will look that up. Marv
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. In all seriousness, good job. Your mirror is your astronomy, no matter if it is five inch or sixteen. Gateway to the heavens requires equal respect regardless of size. Marv
  9. A thing of beauty. Well done. I have been there once before and it still leaves a chill. Time to visit my doctor to see if my crossed fingers will ever work again. I had an odd situation when I did mine. There was a long blond hair across the mirror. I made the mistake of pointing this out to my wife who has dark Afro hair. I can honestly say that my grade 4 buzz cut is not the culprit, and I am sure that I have never seen a long haired blonde at my scope. I am sure that having a telescope means that I am immune from female attention. Not to mention my interesting repartee about the difference between magnitude and apparent magnitude. Yeh, still got it going on. Marv
  10. Your final question about expected magnitude of a quasar at one billion lys distance. I have a distance in my notes for MK205 of 1100 mlys, that’s just over a billion right? I will try to find out what magnitude this quasar is listed as. Why do I feel another question coming up? If lensing is the cause of MK205 appearing to be next to NGC4319 then would the lensing effect cause 205 to appear differently, ie magnified in size or brightness? Marvin
  11. You got to give me at least one mark for attempting it. I did say it would take me a while to get an incorrect answer. Q1 source space math.gsfc.nasa.gov I did see the SDSS figure but you cannot beat a source with nasa in the title. Q3 was a list of all galaxies including dwarf up to 100 million lys. The source was NED and I cut it down from 2500 to 2000 as our prime concern was galaxies out to a distance of 77 mlys. Q4 is definitely my problem, or I didn’t understand your question. My understanding is there are 41253 square degrees of sky, so how much of that sky is covered by our galaxies in question? I forgot to look at square degrees of sky as 60 minutes of arc x 60 minutes of arc (squared) I worked out a rough area in arc minutes squared of a galaxy, multiplied it by 2000 for the amount of galaxies to get total arc minutes squared of all the galaxies we are using. I agree with you that they would only cover 4-5 deg in total. Q5, No we do not. I make 310 quasars per square degree of sky, so five degrees of sky covers 1550 quasars. So the closest 2000 galaxies obscure 1550 QSOs. So back to ARP and his picture of NGC4319, if a single galaxy can produce gravitational lensing (?) and most galaxies are obscuring a background quasar then a lot of observable galaxies should be showing an optical illusion companion? Do you know of any other galaxies within 100mlys that have the same situation or similar as NGC4319 and MK205? I can’t find any but I am not sure where to look. Marv
  12. I’m back with an answer. Fried my brain to tell the truth. One of the hardest parts is to find accurate data to start with. Q1. 12.8 million Q2. 310 Q3. About 2000 Q4. 1200 square degrees Q5. 2000 galaxies covering 372,000 Quasars at an average of 186 quasars per galaxy. How did I do? Marv
  13. Put me out of my misery please. Tell me it is gleaming and back where it should be not being used a dog water bowl. M
  14. It has been thirteen hours. I can’t keep my fingers crossed for much longer. How did the cleaning go?
  15. Wow. Please give a description. What does the object look like through that monster? 24 inch Dob! Stuff of dreams. Marv
  16. I am going to give that a go. See you next year I will have a bash at it but it will take some time to come up with an incorrect answer.
  17. Now that is an interesting thought. So if we know the distance by redshift of NGC4319 and the distance by redshift of MK205 we know how far in the background MK205 is. I am right in assuming that because MK205’s light has reached us from a far farther distance it is older than the galaxy? If a QSO is active for a finite period, then would that period of activity be shorter or longer than the life of a galaxy by comparison?
  18. The maths to calculate the number of quasars expected around a galaxy!!! I said I read the book Bang and looked on the web for an hour not completed a degree Seriously though, how does one go about such a task? As to my comment about expecting galaxies to have quasars if lensing is present, perhaps I should have said object. I was thinking along the lines of ‘If a single galaxy creates lensing, so any decent sized galaxy with an object behind it should show the distant object as an optical close neighbour’ Perhaps I am simplifying things too much. Marv
  19. I have had a look at that idea. It is clearly an extraordinary effect as predicted by Einstein and captured in that stunning image not so long ago. The only thing troubles me about gravitational lensing in this instance is that I have noted it being used in reference to large gravitational areas like galaxy clusters. Just a presumption, but if one galaxy NGC4319 can create gravitational lensing then I would expect most galaxies to have a QSO as a neighbour. My basic idea is that if we are looking at a galaxy and it has another some distance behind it, it would be shown by lensing. With the amount of galaxies lensing should be evident a lot of the time I would have thought. Marvin
  20. I had to laugh though. Put in a search for NGC4319 in the NASA Hubble site and it came back with unknown. I tried again in upper case and the site came back closed due to maintenance! Just a coincidence I know, but what a time for that to happen. M
  21. Found some. I didn’t know that the wide field took pictures like that. Seems I have been seeing pictures that slightly cropped for display purposes. I saw the black area and thought redaction. Thanks for the info.
  22. Are there any other examples of galaxy pictures from Hubble looking like that. I am a Hubble image fan (aren’t we all) and I cannot ever remember seeing this before. I will have a good look through the archive on the web and see if I can more. Do you know of a link specific to that type of Hubble image? Marv
  23. I did wonder about that possibility and MK 205 being in some form of optical alignment but there seems to be a problem. Taking into account all of the above and using the revised red shift to attain a distance of MK 205 surely means that MK 205 is impossibly large and bright. Any thoughts? Marv
  24. Solid cloud here anyway, thankfully or I might not have been able to resist. M
  25. With my ongoing efforts to expand my understanding of Cosmology from very little to a little bit more I managed to get my head around the current accepted idea of how our universe came into being, thanks to the excellent book Bang. I have been aware for sometime about the ARP catalogue of peculiar galaxies and found out a little about Halton C Arp, it’s author. I have noticed a few curious and discouraging remarks about his observations. Wikipedia states his observation of the galaxy NGC4319 with a companion QSO interacting with the galaxy and connected by a bridge even though the two objects have different red shifts has been disproved. Furthermore, the conclusion that these objects are in very different parts of the universe has been proved by their different red shifts!!!! That’s the whole point of Arp pointing out the physical connection. I googled the ESA Hubble image of NGC4319 and the attached picture is what I was confronted with on the ESA website. It seems obvious this a blatant bit of censorship. I realise that insisting that red shift as a concept is fundamentally flawed has the effect of calling into question the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang which might annoy the establishment. However, blacking out a section of a picture that is real visual data is extremely troubling to me. If this is the case then how do the Astro scientific community plan to deal with future sky survey data and Hubble pictures, lock it all away under lock and key in case it does not fit the current model? I thought science was based on observation/hypothesis/testing not ignoring and censorship. Marvin
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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