Jump to content


Photo

Uranus cloud bands in a C8

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
271 replies to this topic

#251 blb

blb

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4472
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont NC

Posted 23 February 2013 - 12:13 PM

After five months plus, you all are still arguing with someone who sees what no one else can see. Only a few can ever see what he does and those are the ones who probably saw the canals on Mars, if they had lived back then. How many of us have seen any detail in a plenatary nebula of the same size? or any other planet for that mater. With abilities like his, we should look at Mercury and contribute to our knowledge of this inner planet, but it can't be done. Yes it is possible to see some detail on Uranus occasionaly but not to see banding every time you look at the planet. If you could see this then others would see it too, but they can't. So I would say just stop arguing with him and let him do his own thing. We can argue when his work is published in a profesional journal. Until then, so what.
 

#252 stanislas-jean

stanislas-jean

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

I am pretty sure also, because here in team.
You are alone, pretty sure also, in your head in first.
And not alone by also the data published by some other observers at the sites given, during the present opposition.
Pretty sure and probably more at the next opposition.
This is what I aimed by and through this forum.
You will not be.
Stanislas-Jean
 

#253 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10349
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:03 PM

Stan your getting a little personal here. Mr. Mullet in quoting an important person in the field on a point of view that supports his beliefs. That's fair game Stan. In the face of it though you are making personal jabs which is unfair to others who don't want this locked up.

What you might want to consider is that no observer artist can PROVE their drawing is 100% accurate. It's a faith issue and a lot of things come together to form that. Lashing out (and granted Mr. M has been pointed too) isn't supporting your purposes. At some point you have to realize you will have some detractors. So long as you are posting in a public forum that is part of the public element.

I don't give up on Uranus personally ( though it takes gumption to bother) and Im not convinced you have seen nothing real either. It's an interesting point of interest positive or negative.

At anyrate when a person can read your blood pressure in a post - you are standing to close.

Pete
 

#254 stanislas-jean

stanislas-jean

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:37 PM

Be honest with your self.
It's a matter of confidence not faith my dear and the best way to be confident is to see globally where you are on a problem.
And for knowing where you are it is necessary to synthetise the situation. And for synthetise the situation this is for the practice of analyse, practice contradictory tests, make comparison with results, compare with other observing data, etc....
What's for your famous lady is doing here? To get doubt or managing situation for refutting easily;
May I object with claiming to you for considering the views given since the beginning by me that are not autosuggestion results. Goto a lab for getting your own personal equation for viewing, it's not imagination from mind but positive action.
This is a public forum, is it not!
You have to admit the question well possible physically.
Tell me your technical argument against? Never given since the 500 posts taken place here on 2 forums. Still waiting.
Stanislas-Jean
 

#255 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14574
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:12 PM

That is a quote from one of the most influential and prominent physicists practicing today. She aptly and succinctly describes with that one paragraph the essence of science. You are alone in your observations.


Well, I don't see any observing credentials there. Has she ever observed Uranus? Or, is this another yawn-inspiring instance of someone who can't do something, explaining why nobody else can - the "Sour Grapes" syndrome?

We have had several heavyweight observers weighing in here (directly and indirectly) on the side of seeing details on Uranus; people like David Gray, David Graham, William Sheehan, and Steve O'Meara (or haven't you read those posts?)

Perhaps Stan isn't as alone as you seem to think. Maybe the problem is in your own lack of visual acuity. To paraphrase an old quote: Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there. Although, I doubt that you, personally, have ever tried with an open mind, and for long enough to come to any sort of intelligent conclusion.
If you're going to be a doubter, you might emulate David K., who has gone out and tried.
 

#256 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10349
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:24 PM



I get your point. I appreciate your numbers, facts and figures and percentages and I've read it all and Im not disputing the numbers .
For me though - its never happened. I'd love it too and maybe some 9/10 night it will. I can't say I've seen the planet under the best seeing I've had or the top five nights ever. So there is that. I have paltry hope though. If that 9/10 night comes when it s up and I'm out and there aren't bands Stan, you'll never hear the end of it!!!

In fun,

Pete
 

#257 telescopemullet

telescopemullet

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2009

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:41 PM

This is not about her observing a planet, it's about one of the world's most brilliant minds describing science. Your sour grapes comment only supports her point. I suggest you read her book.
 

#258 stanislas-jean

stanislas-jean

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:58 AM

Yes my dear.
I am of the old school manners.
Now numbers quantifications are not explanations for suiting a situation for personal agreement as you imagine with your psychanalistic science.
Numbers are rather reasons why, this is quite different and a world between.
So still no argument from you.
Rather than this kind of reading, I suggest you to take information from radioastronomer who create the JT65 mode for data transmission and recently deeper modes.
You will be surprised by the fact that data are extracted from the noise without SNR ratio. How, by the singularities supported by the radio signal modulation that is quite different from the noise pattern itself. The phase modulation of the signal is the discriminator and the SNR ratio is then applying on this criteria. This is not the signal amplitude that is the lead criteria.
Now apply this to visual observations, what can be the discriminators and how you can be trained for this?
Experience is placed also in that fields and here this shall be personal.
Imagine a flight fighter pilot now at the command in hot action with rapid and fuzzy data moving at eyes, the decision oftenly has to be performed quickly without making the read of the lady book only. They are trained and experienced so experimented.
But what can cover the term of experience and qualificative experimented?
The long distanced targets views are very interresting for studying all these facts, and we know also, being lucky, that the contrast levels on planet stand still around 2%.
Where is autosuggestion?
I am HAM.
Stanislas-Jean
 

#259 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 24 February 2013 - 05:53 AM

After five months plus, you all are still arguing with someone who sees what no one else can see. Only a few can ever see what he does and those are the ones who probably saw the canals on Mars, if they had lived back then. How many of us have seen any detail in a plenatary nebula of the same size? or any other planet for that mater. With abilities like his, we should look at Mercury and contribute to our knowledge of this inner planet, but it can't be done. Yes it is possible to see some detail on Uranus occasionaly but not to see banding every time you look at the planet. If you could see this then others would see it too, but they can't. So I would say just stop arguing with him and let him do his own thing. We can argue when his work is published in a profesional journal. Until then, so what.


Seems to me over 11k views of this thread (10k+ on the “..Season”) might be indication of something worthwhile in spite of the often rather circular debate/s at times.

Planetary nebulae: Please point me to a one that truly matches Uranus in brightness and visual aspect. An unfortunate prefix, “planetary”, I believe coined by William Herschel, but I suspect not meant as an exact comparison. Does the Saturn Nebula really look a lot like that planet? If I were to start seeing Saturn looking like that I would reckon my observing days were over! NGC 6891 in Delphinus (a long-time favourite of mine) has been mentioned. I hope we would not use this (or any other) c.100x fainter object, with some comparatively coarser features, as a yardstick for Uranus. Perhaps I might revise my impressions if I was allowed to view it in the Palomar 5m, or suchlike, versus Uranus in my 415mm D-K, or even an 8” SCT – but very much doubt it! I have had many views through a friend’s 8” Celestron for the record – not Uranus so far!

As I said previously: next apparition I will put the 152mm off-axis stop (f/44!) on the (f/16) D-K and give it a fair (and cautious!) appraisal. Then hopefully post my impressions; if Uranus has not become CN’s Forbidden Planet by then!!
 

#260 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10349
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:38 AM

Not a planet but demoted to argument!

I equate these two threads as something of a tennis match. "Your Serve" might've been a better title . Still it does bear fruit.

Pete
 

#261 stanislas-jean

stanislas-jean

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posted 24 February 2013 - 11:03 AM

Sorry we see nothing to "confess" to you.
We are not intellectual observer, far away.
I feel your entry game of tenis play is well over, since long time.
 

#262 blb

blb

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4472
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Piedmont NC

Posted 24 February 2013 - 11:49 AM

After five months plus, you all are still arguing with someone who sees what no one else can see. Only a few can ever see what he does and those are the ones who probably saw the canals on Mars, if they had lived back then. How many of us have seen any detail in a plenatary nebula of the same size? or any other planet for that mater. With abilities like his, we should look at Mercury and contribute to our knowledge of this inner planet, but it can't be done. Yes it is possible to see some detail on Uranus occasionaly but not to see banding every time you look at the planet. If you could see this then others would see it too, but they can't. So I would say just stop arguing with him and let him do his own thing. We can argue when his work is published in a profesional journal. Until then, so what.


Seems to me over 11k views of this thread (10k+ on the “..Season”) might be indication of something worthwhile in spite of the often rather circular debate/s at times.

Planetary nebulae: Please point me to a one that truly matches Uranus in brightness and visual aspect. An unfortunate prefix, “planetary”, I believe coined by William Herschel, but I suspect not meant as an exact comparison. Does the Saturn Nebula really look a lot like that planet? If I were to start seeing Saturn looking like that I would reckon my observing days were over! NGC 6891 in Delphinus (a long-time favourite of mine) has been mentioned. I hope we would not use this (or any other) c.100x fainter object, with some comparatively coarser features, as a yardstick for Uranus. Perhaps I might revise my impressions if I was allowed to view it in the Palomar 5m, or suchlike, versus Uranus in my 415mm D-K, or even an 8” SCT – but very much doubt it! I have had many views through a friend’s 8” Celestron for the record – not Uranus so far!

As I said previously: next apparition I will put the 152mm off-axis stop (f/44!) on the (f/16) D-K and give it a fair (and cautious!) appraisal. Then hopefully post my impressions; if Uranus has not become CN’s Forbidden Planet by then!!

I was not speaking of any of the nebula that you have mentioned. I was talking about the many stellar planetary nebula that are only 3 to 4 arc seconds in size, which most of us have to blink with a filter to confirm the identification, yet Stanislas is seeing detail in this size object on a regular basis. Really? I mean REALLY? Yes I do agree that there are those who have seen detail on Uranus. O'Meara determined the rotation rate of Uranus with such observations, but that was a spot. He did NOT see banding every time he looked at Uranus now did he? The same for the other names that have mentioned.

I have looked at Uranus many times and never have seen any detail. Does that mean that others can't? NO! It only means that I have not seen any to date. I may one day see some detail too, but do I believe that some one can see such detail every time he looks at the 3.7 arc second planet, NO, I don't believe that. The atmosphere we look through will not allow that. None of the great names mentioned have seen detail each and every time they look at this planet either. So let me just go ahad and bow at the feet of this great observer, :bow:, because we have not gone to the labratory and tested our vision like him. Really? Really?
 

#263 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 24 February 2013 - 01:20 PM

Once again I get mis-read: 3" to 4" is far from stellar at over x300 and my often used x535 gives similar Uranus disk size to the lunar. The brightness factor is the issue - where are similarly bright PNs of these dimensions ("aspect")? I did not suggest comparison using NGC 6891 with Uranus - more like disputing such a comparison (please re-read!). As for the "Saturn" I was simply demonstrating the looseness used in naming such DSOs.

O'Meara was pretty much unlikely to see much banding anyhow as at that epoch Uranus was pole-on. He did, get as well as a spot, a polar cap and part of what looked like a partially circumscribing band and zone at the limb however: 1981 July 23 using the Harvard Observatory 9 inch refractor. As for O'Meara and others seeing or not banding in large/v. large telescopes I have covered that in earlier posts not too far back on here - page 12.

With regard to Stan: from the standpoint of a longtime Uranus observer I give him the benefit of the doubt, and refuse to condemn him outright nor descend to some of the nastiness I have read. My first sightings were with a 10" Newtonian with - now classic - H. Wildey optics. Please study my above mentioned posts.

For next apparition I would say to those who want to give Uranus a fair go the please disregard the sour-grape negativity of the nay-sayers.
 

#264 David Gray

David Gray

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Nr. Scotland.

Posted 24 February 2013 - 01:44 PM

"He did not write that he saw a belt(s), big difference."

I lost this bit somewhere in my editing - my response:

When a guy like Sheehan commits to such a remark maybe the difference is not that great.

He was also there in 1995 with David Graham and David told me that he and a couple of others were getting detail on Uranus (the 36") and Sheehan refused to look as he said they had influenced him....!!


My fault: I was too light on background detail with Sheehan's quoted message and risk putting him in a bad light so will here elaborate with everyone's indulgence.

So let’s take a closer look at Sheehan’s wording: [Uranus]……. “and had the distinct impression that there was a dark equatorial belt,…………..You can pass along to David Gray my confirmation” which, to be fair, can look somewhat contradictory with the second phrase: ….”You can pass along to David Gray my confirmation”. Confirmation? Yes because David Graham had later mentioned my drawing showing the dark belt – hence mutual agreement: i.e. my more confident view giving more certainty to his distinct impression – not 100% certainty perhaps (and we risk splitting hairs) but not a “big difference” either! Are we to believe that Sheehan of all people would commit himself to saying confirmation so readily otherwise?
 

#265 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14574
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:05 PM

This is not about her observing a planet, it's about one of the world's most brilliant minds describing science. Your sour grapes comment only supports her point. I suggest you read her book.


I'm not following your line of illogic. But, let's let that pass for now. The quote you posted from her was:

“Although our instinct might be that observations made unaided with our eyes are the most reliable and that we should be suspicious of abstraction, science teaches us to transcend this all too human inclination. The measurements we make with the instruments we design are more trustworthy than our naked eyes, and can be improved and verified through repetition.”


OK, let's go with that. I've seen any number of images of Uranus taken from Earth that show banding. So, she appears to really be supporting Stan, who claims to have observed features visually that have indeed been imaged by large telescopes and spacecraft.

Why is it so difficult for you to entertain the idea that this might actually be true? That Stan may just have better vision and observing conditions than you?
I suggest you read something other than her book.
 

#266 leviathan

leviathan

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 295
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Azerbaijan

Posted 24 February 2013 - 03:34 PM

Well, I don't see any observing credentials there. Has she ever observed Uranus? Or, is this another yawn-inspiring instance of someone who can't do something, explaining why nobody else can - the "Sour Grapes" syndrome?

We have had several heavyweight observers weighing in here (directly and indirectly) on the side of seeing details on Uranus; people like David Gray, David Graham, William Sheehan, and Steve O'Meara (or haven't you read those posts?)

Perhaps Stan isn't as alone as you seem to think. Maybe the problem is in your own lack of visual acuity. To paraphrase an old quote: Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there. Although, I doubt that you, personally, have ever tried with an open mind, and for long enough to come to any sort of intelligent conclusion.
If you're going to be a doubter, you might emulate David K., who has gone out and tried.

+1
 

#267 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10349
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:33 PM

For next apparition I would say to those who want to give Uranus a fair go the please disregard the sour-grape negativity of the nay-sayers.



I think it'd be shame if the planet were a write-off in terms of expectations by the curious, or new. In the same token I can appreciate the restraint and respect of the undertaking. It would be wrong if some gave the impression this were a virtual blue mars of contrasts and any given calendar evening is sure to turn out a show. Somewhere down the middle, leaning toward restraint in assumption is that elusive road. Perusing the ALPO site I've seen even very careful observers ordinarily known for some of the best work produce Uranus sketches that couldn't possibly be based on reality. A broadbanded *Y* pattern or *X* simply can't be but even dating into antiquity these drawings in those patterns have surfaced, much like the eye/brain straining to fill in a void or question with a quasi-truth.
I wish I had access to those older drawings - I recall them in an old Sky and Tel article. All this I suppose to convey that its a tricky undertaking with nothing pat about it (not implying you say it is) - I count myself fortunate to date I haven't seen an alphabet there yet.

Pete
 

#268 Astrodj

Astrodj

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Missouri

Posted 24 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

I have followed the "Uranus" threads with interest.

My personal experience is that I am 100% certain that I have never seen ANY clouds, bands, or spots on Uranus with my equipment.

I think there is a 99.9% certainty that I never will see any of this type of detail from my regular observing site and it's associated seeing conditions.

I also think there is a 99.8% certainty that I will not observe anything of this nature from any other site I manage to get to.

That does NOT mean I won't be trying though. I could be wrong, after all :grin:.
 

#269 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10349
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

DJ and that Cave is such a monster!!! One of THE best reflectors I've ever looked through. I agree though, I would never give up. I don't mean that in any small way either.

P.
 

#270 Astrodj

Astrodj

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Missouri

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

Pete,

And... if I ever do see any of these details there is a 99.7% chance I will not mention having done so! :whistle:

I love my old Cave, of course. It doesn't get out as much as it deserves.
 

#271 stanislas-jean

stanislas-jean

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

DJ nothing is loosed it remains 0.3%!
I think contradictors should apraised a situation objectively:
- consider the problem hard to access but possible, sufficient assessments were given in order to locate the situation of the problem that kills the idea of a featureless planet. So commonly diffused.
- consider the reports performed visually are given by some few observers. Being not alone. David is and we know also P Abel that performed this present opposition reports with his 8" and also with a 20" consistently. There was also more confidential contributors at the planet section. And sure among this world they are elsewhere. I guess them for participating to the survey.

But in fact why do you refuse the tests practice? Afraid to be "classified"? And what, this is not a risk to fall.
Because the test practice covers also the lady book concern and solve this.
What is the definition or the meaning of the word experience for you? We had seen so "experienced" people talking so freely.
Thanks David a new time for your input here.
Stanislas-Jean
 

#272 Rich (RLTYS)

Rich (RLTYS)

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5160
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004
  • Loc: New York (Long Island)

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:29 AM

To All

This thread seems to have turned into one big arguemant. Time to lock it.

Rich (RLTYS)
 






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics