Marvin Jenkins

9 hours ago, Paul M said:

It was probably my first non stellar non solar system encounter too. I remember seeing it long before I knew what it was. I was a very poor reader until I discovered that you can learn interesting things from books (something that wasn't immediately apparent to me from my education). It was from an old astronomy book in the school library that I learned that those three stars were Orion's Belt, from there the Sword and the Great Nebula. In those days there was no fancy digital image processing and even the best images in the world were nowhere near as impressive as many SGL offerings. These days most images of M42 are quite extended and have a double lobed appearance, which is beautiful, but as I said above you have the classic frame of the primary lobe with, again, the calassic colouring. I actually recognise it as my old friend!

 

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome back, best decision you have made. The night sky is happy to have you back and good luck and clear skies

Marvin

WOW. And I thought ‘I’ needed to get out more....😂

Marv

10 hours ago, Gfamily said:

Arp's principal claim is that alignments between galaxies and AGNs are far higher than statistically likely, hence there is a physical cause for the correlation, and hence that red shift (for certain classes of astronomical objects) is not correlated to distance.

At the time of his claims, we didn't have the data about the distribution of quasars that we have now. The main argument against isn't "red shift proves Arp wrong", it's "More data shows that Arp's principal claim isn't correct". 

Picking individual cases and saying "this looks like it's closer than that", or "these two things look like they are connected" is a weak basis for challenging the generally accepted cosmological model. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if the principal item of evidence (the statistics) has been discounted, then reverting to individual 'odd looking' cases is not really strong enough.

 

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

6 hours ago, Gfamily said:

 

Ummm, what makes you think there hasn't been examination of the ideas, or that they've been dismissed for little scientific reason? 

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

It will never end.

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

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.

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.

10 hours ago, Kon said:

Hi,

I have taken a few Milky Way pics with my Nikon D3200 18-55mm lens. I am a complete novice. I tried iso 1600 and 3200 and 20s exposure. I tried to play with levels in GIMP but the results are not the best. Any suggestions or ideas on how to bring nicer colours out? happy to provide the RAW image.  I posted on a different part of this site but no replies so probably not the correct one.?

 

Thanks

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

30 minutes ago, philthy said:

https://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138

The position of the quasar doesn't look like a thin part of the galaxy NGC7319 to me. It's pretty central.

I just think Arp's ideas have been binned,  without due examination, because of the implications for the red shift & big bang theories.

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

1 hour ago, Gfamily said:

Related to NGC7319 https://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/150

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

11 hours ago, philthy said:

Another of Arp's discoveries, which is even more interesting, is NGC7319,  with a red shift of 0.0225, that has a quasar in front of it but with a red shift of 2.114 which puts it billions of LY further away.

The Tooth fairy must have poked a hole in the galaxy for the quasar to shine through.

Thanks for the NGC number, I will look that up. 
Marv

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

22 hours ago, andrew s said:

I don't think there is a simple answer as it depends on how accurate you want it to be.  

"For parallaxes, uncertainties are typically around 0.04 mas for sources brighter than ~14 mag, around 0.1 mas for sources with a G magnitude around 17, and around 0.7 mas at the faint end, around 20 mag. "

Have a look at this this which is where the quote is from.

Regards Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

6 hours ago, Gfamily said:

Oooh, 

Q1 I guess you got from here, but I'm not sure where that 'function' came from, and of course, that's for quasars down to magnitude 23, whereas  MK205 is a thousands (or tens of thousands) of times brighter. 

Q2 The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has identified in the region of 5-600,000 quasars (according to the wiki), so the number may be a bit less

Q3 Hmm, maybe (are you including dwarf galaxies?)

Q4 What!!!?!!! NGC4319 is about 3' by 2.5' - which is about 1/480 of a [square] degree, so even if there were 2000 galaxies, that would only be about 4-5 square degrees in total

Q5 Do we see ~200 Quasars behind galaxies? 

 

Question - what is the 'expected' magnitude of a Quasar at about 1 Bly distance?  I'm trying to find its magnitude. 

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
 

On 26/09/2020 at 11:42, Gfamily said:

I may be wrong, but my thoughts would aim to keep it as simple as possible - so would be along the lines of... 

Q1 "How many quasars do we know there are?"

If we assume they are randomly distributed the next Q is

Q2 "How many are there per 'square degree' on the sky?"

Now; we know NGC 4319 is a close-by (relatively) galaxy - so its angular size is larger than most. 

So let's ask  -

Q3  "How many galaxies are as close (or closer ) as NGC4319?"

and Q4 "What's their combined angular size?"

Then you can ask -

Q5 "Given the total angular size from Q4; how many Quasars (as per Q2) would be covered by a part of a galaxy as close as NGC4319?"

 

 

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