Astronomy News

[dad]

The data was processed using the maths process and Fits Liberator which is the standard processing package used by the professionals.

Can you talk about this a bit?

I noticed this..
"To make a natural colour image the order of the colours assigned to the different exposures should be in “chromatic order”, i.e. the lowest wavelength should be given a blue hue, the middle wavelength a green hue and the highest wavelength should be red."
A short introduction to astronomical image processing

A wavelength depends on space.

"In physics, the wavelength is the spatial period of a periodic wave—the distance over which the wave's shape repeats." wiki

Of course, time is the other main factor.

"Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency of the wave" wiki

So when we see the waves, that would be in our time and space. Any colors and other things that are assigned to the data is based on basically, time and space here, where we see the light.

It does look pretty and interesting, but we should keep an open mind as to what it may actually look like somewhere far out of the time and space we view it all in!

 

[Ophiolite]

Looking at the article cited, it uses scientific premises. How big the universe is, and how stars form. and what they eat, and the BB starting point etc.

Pop science, though typically well intentioned, is rife with over simplification, omissions, hyperbole and errors. If you take your understanding of science from pop science then your understanding will suffer from the same issues.

You can't disassociate this from science.

Of course you can't. That's why I didn't. I noted that they were not the same thing. This does not mean there is no overlap on a Venn diagram.

Science magazines and sites generally link some study or source as well.

And it is the primary source that you should be studying, citing and and using to form your understanding. You do not appear to do so. You certainly did not do so in this instance.

 

[pitabread]

Pop science, though typically well intentioned, is rife with over simplification, omissions, hyperbole and errors. If you take your understanding of science from pop science then your understanding will suffer from the same issues.

It doesn't help that so many headlines these days are pure clickbait designed to draw traffic in contrast to presenting an accurate representation of the material.

 

[Kaon]

Can we talk about the error of Newtonian gravitation, and the failure of Eisenstein relativity to explain the field interaction properly, and the implications of past, present and future theories about gravity - if it actually exists? This is something that has been brought up before, but not in much mathematical or physical detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...7f3696-a723-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html

Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.

 

[dad]

Pop science, though typically well intentioned, is rife with over simplification, omissions, hyperbole and errors. If you take your understanding of science from pop science then your understanding will suffer from the same issues.

I don't agree, generally speaking. Sometimes the actual paper is over-complication of what could be simpler concepts.

Of course you can't. That's why I didn't. I noted that they were not the same thing. This does not mean there is no overlap on a Venn diagram.

A Venn diagram is basically just some circles with little symbols or letters that represent things. For the unknown universe, we may be dealing with more than you can conceptualize, or think is logical. For example, there are spiritual components or elements in the universe that cannot be represented by whatever you pencil into one of the Venn circles!

And it is the primary source that you should be studying, citing and and using to form your understanding. You do not appear to do so. You certainly did not do so in this instance.

For those who deem the science nothing more than speculation, conjecture, and belief based guessing, wasting time reading over-complicated wordy nonsense that takes itself too seriously is not a worthwhile endeavor. Better to see the claims/experiments/ideas simplified in a readable article. You should understand that some people do not want to study Mother Goose or Hans Christian Anderson or Steven Hawking or some scientific study that deals in many claims and beliefs and treats them as matter of fact, rather than presenting the plethora of beliefs the study uses for what they are.

 

[dad]

It doesn't help that so many headlines these days are pure clickbait designed to draw traffic in contrast to presenting an accurate representation of the material.

Think of it this way. If a reporter covers a big gathering at Mecca, they might mention some details like numbers, reasons for attending and etc. They do not need to give a thesis on Mohamed. Some people may be interested in an in-depth look at the details of the history and nature of the religion, but most may just want to see the basic story.
In the article I posted, it tells how science thinks some distant formation ate stuff. That is interesting. For me, it is interesting because it shows how foolish it is, and how absolutely speculative and faith-based it is. Now some might swallow the story and believe it to be true and worth deep study, that is fine. I would not recommend it!

 

[pitabread]

If a reporter covers a big gathering at Mecca, they might mention some details like numbers, reasons for attending and etc. They do not need to give a thesis on Mohamed. Some people may be interested in an in-depth look at the details of the history and nature of the religion, but most may just want to see the basic story.

I'm not talking about simplification. I'm talking about distortion of facts.

The reality of science journalism in that in the effort to simplify a story, the true facts can be distorted to the point of presenting false or misleading information. This is especially the case when trying to come up with an attention grabbing headline.

It's also problematic when single soundbites are published from scientists that strip out all of the nuance or details of whatever the story is about. I've seen people here quoting news articles and press releases as though they were published scientific papers. They aren't. You have to talk science journalism with a grain of salt.

If people aren't inclined to look into the details, they can easily end up believing incorrect information.

 

[SelfSim]

'A lie of omission is still a lie' ..

'I swear to tell the truth .. the whole truth .. and nothing but the truth .. (so help me God)'.

 

[sjastro]

Can you talk about this a bit?

I noticed this..
"To make a natural colour image the order of the colours assigned to the different exposures should be in “chromatic order”, i.e. the lowest wavelength should be given a blue hue, the middle wavelength a green hue and the highest wavelength should be red."
A short introduction to astronomical image processing

A wavelength depends on space.

"In physics, the wavelength is the spatial period of a periodic wave—the distance over which the wave's shape repeats." wiki

Of course, time is the other main factor.

"Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency of the wave" wiki

So when we see the waves, that would be in our time and space. Any colors and other things that are assigned to the data is based on basically, time and space here, where we see the light.

It does look pretty and interesting, but we should keep an open mind as to what it may actually look like somewhere far out of the time and space we view it all in!

A “natural” colour image is based on objects emitting a continuous spectrum and exposures are calibrated according to “normal” human vision.
This is clearly an arbitrary choice as colour blind people, dogs, cats and insects for example see the world differently.
Changing the chromatic order can create psychedelic colours which might be normal to someone on LSD.

When it comes to objects such as emission nebula which emit light in discrete wavelengths the term natural is even vaguer.
CCD images reveal bright emission nebulae as being mainly red but when viewed in a telescope they appear greenish.
This is because the human eye is less sensitive to light in the red part of the spectrum whereas in modern CCD chips sensitivity is far less variable over the visible spectrum.
Hence the term natural is very relative.

When it comes to distant objects we already know the wavelength of light emitted from the object’s rest frame can be different to when we receive it; due to a variety of reasons such cosmological redshift, Doppler redshift, or interstellar reddening.

 

[dad]

I'm not talking about simplification. I'm talking about distortion of facts.

In the article that I posted show us a distortion of 'facts'? What, they said it took hundreds of millions of years to eat the meal rather than millions of years!? Ha. Not like anyone could ever check.

The reality of science journalism in that in the effort to simplify a story, the true facts can be distorted to the point of presenting false or misleading information. This is especially the case when trying to come up with an attention grabbing headline.

If true facts were involved rather than the usual science speculation you might have a point.

It's also problematic when single soundbites are published from scientists that strip out all of the nuance or details of whatever the story is about.

In the articles I see and the one posted, there is more than enough to get the idea!

I've seen people here quoting news articles and press releases as though they were published scientific papers. They aren't. You have to talk science journalism with a grain of salt.

You say that as if we were talking about quoting some authoritative source. No. Most of the articles are about imaginary things they think must have happened in the imaginary distant past.

If people aren't inclined to look into the details, they can easily end up believing incorrect information.

Unfortunately the more they do look into it, the more disinformation they might believe.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't agree, generally speaking. Sometimes the actual paper is over-complication of what could be simpler concepts.

This tells us more about you than it does about peer reviewed research articles. Specifically, it tells you are mistaken.

A Venn diagram is basically just some circles with little symbols or letters that represent things. For the unknown universe, we may be dealing with more than you can conceptualize, or think is logical. For example, there are spiritual components or elements in the universe that cannot be represented by whatever you pencil into one of the Venn circles!

Completely irrelevant. My point was that science and pop science are not the same thing, though there is some overlap. I apologise for wording my original explanation in the over-complicated language of science.

For those who deem the science nothing more than speculation, conjecture, and belief based guessing, wasting time reading over-complicated wordy nonsense that takes itself too seriously is not a worthwhile endeavor.

If you think science is speculation, conjecture and belief based guessing the diagnosis would be simple: you have utterly failed to acquire an understanding of the scientific method or to make a serious attempt to assess its value by studying, in depth, examples of original research. It very much sounds as if you are the one guilty of speculation, conjecture and belief based guessing. Projection, thy Name is Dad.

Better to see the claims/experiments/ideas simplified in a readable article. You should understand that some people do not want to study Mother Goose or Hans Christian Anderson or Steven Hawking or some scientific study that deals in many claims and beliefs and treats them as matter of fact, rather than presenting the plethora of beliefs the study uses for what they are.

People who do not want to properly study actual science, rather than popular, lowest-common-denominator versions, have zero right to pontificate on the actual findings of actual science, especially when they regurgitate gross simplifications, errors, misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Such behaviour is an insult to the individual, to science, scientists and (with only a touch of hyperbole) humanity itself.

 

[dad]

A “natural” colour image is based on objects emitting a continuous spectrum and exposures are calibrated according to “normal” human vision.
This is clearly an arbitrary choice as colour blind people, dogs, cats and insects for example see the world differently.
Changing the chromatic order can create psychedelic colours which might be normal to someone on LSD.

The thing is the reasons colors are thought to need changing. If we can't assume wavelengths convey meanings, what exactly are you basing a color change on? Colors represent stuff.

When it comes to objects such as emission nebula which emit light in discrete wavelengths the term natural is even vaguer.

Since time and space are part of what a wavelength IS, we cannot assume wavelengths here in the solar system area compare with the ones in unknown time and space far far away.

CCD images reveal bright emission nebulae as being mainly red but when viewed in a telescope they appear greenish.

You do know the reason red is assumed/assigned?

This is because the human eye is less sensitive to light in the red part of the spectrum whereas in modern CCD chips sensitivity is far less variable over the visible spectrum.
Hence the term natural is very relative.

Is there an association with heat, or redshifting etc in the colors out there?

When it comes to distant objects we already know the wavelength of light emitted from the object’s rest frame can be different to when we receive it; due to a variety of reasons such cosmological redshift, Doppler redshift, or interstellar reddening.

There are the reasons we know about, yes. There may also be reasons science does not know about! If space and time was not the same, forget about interpreting wavelengths.

 

[pitabread]

If true facts were involved rather than the usual science speculation you might have a point.

*sigh*

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can we talk about the error of Newtonian gravitation, and the failure of Eisenstein relativity to explain the field interaction properly, and the implications of past, present and future theories about gravity - if it actually exists? This is something that has been brought up before, but not in much mathematical or physical detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...7f3696-a723-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html

Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.

Sure, start a thread about it. But as it's not really news or astronomy, it's not really on topic here.

 

[sjastro]

The thing is the reasons colors are thought to need changing. If we can't assume wavelengths convey meanings, what exactly are you basing a color change on? Colors represent stuff.

Colours are based on wavelengths as in illustrated in the table.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-206f3d5881a812869d26fbdec3fb7a8a.webp

The point is astronomers don’t use colour cameras, they use monochrome CCD’s and image through different filters.
In the simplest case using an RGB filter set (red, green blue) the images are combined to form the colour image using software.
In order for the colour image to match what the human eye perceives the exposure ratios for each filter need to be adjusted accordingly.

Since time and space are part of what a wavelength IS, we cannot assume wavelengths here in the solar system area compare with the ones in unknown time and space far far away.

Same reasoning applies to the orbiting China teapot.

You do know the reason red is assumed/assigned?

In emission nebulae the two main discrete wavelengths are the Hα and OIII emissions.

Hα has a wavelength of 656.3nm which puts it in the red range of the spectrum and is usually the strongest emission hence CCD images turn out red unlike telescope views which turn out green due to the OIII emission as the human eye is largely insensitive to Hα.
There are no hard and fast rules as the software can assign wavelengths to different filters to produce false colour images.
False colour images can produce higher contrast to reveal more detail.

Is there an association with heat, or redshifting etc in the colors out there?

The answer is yes to both cases.
Star colours are related directly to their surface temperatures.
Redshifting as an example can make objects that emit long wave UV which is invisible to the naked eye blue, blues can be redshifted to greens and reds redshifted to IR which is invisible.

There are the reasons we know about, yes. There may also be reasons science does not know about! If space and time was not the same, forget about interpreting wavelengths.

Once again the orbiting China teapot makes an appearance.
The reasons given are based on evidence, “unknown reasons” are based on special pleading which is not science.

 

[dad]

Colours are based on wavelengths as in illustrated in the table.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-206f3d5881a812869d26fbdec3fb7a8a.webp

The point is astronomers don’t use colour cameras, they use monochrome CCD’s and image through different filters.
In the simplest case using an RGB filter set (red, green blue) the images are combined to form the colour image using software.
In order for the colour image to match what the human eye perceives the exposure ratios for each filter need to be adjusted accordingly.

OK, so the data is adjusted to reflect how people on earth perceive colors.

Same reasoning applies to the orbiting China teapot.

In emission nebulae the two main discrete wavelengths are the Hα and OIII emissions.

Hα has a wavelength of 656.3nm which puts it in the red range of the spectrum and is usually the strongest emission hence CCD images turn out red unlike telescope views which turn out green due to the OIII emission as the human eye is largely insensitive to Hα.
There are no hard and fast rules as the software can assign wavelengths to different filters to produce false colour images.
False colour images can produce higher contrast to reveal more detail.

OK, so colors are assigned.

The answer is yes to both cases.
Star colours are related directly to their surface temperatures.

Redshifting as an example can make objects that emit long wave UV which is invisible to the naked eye blue, blues can be redshifted to greens and reds redshifted to IR which is invisible.

So the shifted light, when it reaches this area, is perceived as different colors here.

Once again the orbiting China teapot makes an appearance.
The reasons given are based on evidence, “unknown reasons” are based on special pleading which is not science.

That evidence consists of how things are perceived in the apace and time here then. OK.

 

[Kylie]

OK, so the data is adjusted to reflect how people on earth perceive colors.

No. If I have an image sensor that is receptive to all colours, and then put a particular filter in front of it, then I know that only certain wavelengths of light will pass through that filter. If I know that the image formed on the sensor is composed of only wavelengths that people perceive as green, then I can tint that image green and it will be an accurate representation of what a person would have seen if they had looked through the filter instead of the sensor.

OK, so colors are assigned.

So?

So the shifted light, when it reaches this area, is perceived as different colors here.

And we can tell how much it has shifted by since we can examine the spectrum and look at the emission or absorption lines. Since we know where these lines occur in the spectrum,m we can tell if they have been shifted, AND we know how far they have been shifted. This allows us to accurately shift them back to where they were originally.

That evidence consists of how things are perceived in the apace and time here then. OK.

No, the evidence consists of checking against things like the absorption lines so we can measure how far the spectrum has been shifted.

 

[dad]

No. If I have an image sensor that is receptive to all colours, and then put a particular filter in front of it, then I know that only certain wavelengths of light will pass through that filter. If I know that the image formed on the sensor is composed of only wavelengths that people perceive as green, then I can tint that image green and it will be an accurate representation of what a person would have seen if they had looked through the filter instead of the sensor.

Right. You can color the wavelengths to resemble how people see them here in the fishbowl.

So?

So wavelengths in deep space are not assigned. We do not know how much time is involved there at any frequency.

And we can tell how much it has shifted by since we can examine the spectrum and look at the emission or absorption lines.

The light (from which we derive a spectrum) is seen here on earth or nearby after the light enters our area. Is this not correct?

Since we know where these lines occur in the spectrum,m we can tell if they have been shifted, AND we know how far they have been shifted. This allows us to accurately shift them back to where they were originally.

So explain how you know they have been shifted exactly.

No, the evidence consists of checking against things like the absorption lines so we can measure how far the spectrum has been shifted.

You check here.

 

[Kylie]

Right. You can color the wavelengths to resemble how people see them here in the fishbowl.

You make it sound like it's all arbitrary, when it's not.

I can put a green filter over my camera and take a picture. I can then take the same picture without the filter, and just take the green channel in Photoshop. The two images will be practically the same.

So wavelengths in deep space are not assigned. We do not know how much time is involved there at any frequency.

You don't seem to grasp the science involved. We can determine the wavelengths by comparing the absorption and emission lines.

The light (from which we derive a spectrum) is seen here on earth or nearby after the light enters our area. Is this not correct?

Yes, and it's entirely irrelevant.

So explain how you know they have been shifted exactly.

We can take hydrogen and heat it in the lab until it glows. It will put out light of a certain colour, and it will also shine more brightly at certain wavelengths. It looks like this, if you're interested.

(source)

This pattern ALWAYS occurs when hydrogen is heated until it glows.

Now, if the hydrogen is way out in space, like a distant sun, then this pattern can be shifted along the spectrum due to redshift (the exact amount depending on how far away the star is). But the pattern will still have those lines, spaced at those ratios. So, whenever we see those lines, we can be absolutely certain that it is hydrogen producing the photons we are seeing.

Now, for your claim to be correct, then both the redshift and the pattern would almost certainly not match. We'd find that the lines would not match any of the emission lines. Or, we'd find that if by chance the emission lines DID match some element, when we corrected for the redshift, the colour emitted would be incorrect. And yet this doesn't happen.

You check here.

But we are checking two different things. If the science was wrong, we would not get consistent results. But we do. Therefore the science is correct and you are wrong.

 

[dad]

You make it sound like it's all arbitrary, when it's not.

I can put a green filter over my camera and take a picture. I can then take the same picture without the filter, and just take the green channel in Photoshop. The two images will be practically the same

Fun in the fishbowl with cameras is fine. Now try to get some connection here to deep space and what wavelengths are like there?

For example
"Electromagnetic waves always travel at the same speed (299,792 km per second). This is one of their defining characteristics."
How are frequency and wavelength related?

If time did not exist as it does here on earth out in deep space, then any waves there would not be taking one second to move 299,792 km. That is how much time it takes here in our space and time.

We can take hydrogen and heat it in the lab until it glows. It will put out light of a certain colour, and it will also shine more brightly at certain wavelengths. It looks like this, if you're interested.

I agree. In the fishbowl here, on earth in a lab, it looks like that!

This pattern ALWAYS occurs when hydrogen is heated until it glows.

That is the way it works here in the fishbowl of the solar system and area.

Now, if the hydrogen is way out in space, like a distant sun, then this pattern can be shifted along the spectrum due to redshift (the exact amount depending on how far away the star is). But the pattern will still have those lines, spaced at those ratios.

Correct. In the fishbowl light exists a certain way and will always look a certain way! Now if we were way out in space, we might ask what else may be at work that may shift light!? If time itself and space were not the same I suspect some recalculation might be needed.

So, whenever we see those lines, we can be absolutely certain that it is hydrogen producing the photons we are seeing.

I tend to agree. But so what? Hydrogen exists out there, big deal. Other things may also exist that we can't see. One thing that exists out there that we can see from the fishbowl is hydrogen.

Now, for your claim to be correct, then both the redshift and the pattern would almost certainly not match.

You seem to be confused about what my claim is.

We'd find that the lines would not match any of the emission lines.

If time were not the same we would still have hydrogen out there.
"The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted due to an atom or molecule making a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state."
Emission spectrum - Wikipedia

Frequency has to do with time, obviously. Also, since we ONLY see the light here, we might ask if anything could make a transition from energy states out in deep space besides what we are familiar with here.

Or, we'd find that if by chance the emission lines DID match some element, when we corrected for the redshift, the colour emitted would be incorrect. And yet this doesn't happen.

As mentioned, who cares if there is hydrogen and some other elements out there also? That is fine.How would that help you?

But we are checking two different things. If the science was wrong, we would not get consistent results. But we do. Therefore the science is correct and you are wrong.

Since I never said that hydrogen never existed out there no, I am not wrong, and you are wrong saying that I am wrong.