Jump to content


Photo

A term I hate hearing

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#26 izar187

izar187

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1645
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006
  • Loc: 43N

Posted 18 August 2014 - 09:49 AM

Giant dustbunnies in the sky.....

Tiny dust bunnies too!

 

Abell clusters can now be herds of dust bunnies.

 

And outreach shall now be about showing guests some serious dust bunnies.


Edited by izar187, 18 August 2014 - 10:26 AM.


#27 Brett Carlson

Brett Carlson

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 266
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Rochester, NY

Posted 18 August 2014 - 10:14 AM

I don't use that term much....only to maybe explain that some of the DSO's were looking at looked like faint fuzzy objects to the telescopes of the day compared to the views we get now.



#28 loudupe

loudupe

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2013
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 01:00 PM

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet...

                                                                   - W. Shakespeare



#29 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12632
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 18 August 2014 - 03:17 PM

We all have terms that annoy us. Faint fuzzy never annoyed me. Calling Nevada 'Nevahda' does, as does 'Frisco' to people I know from San Francisco. For people not all that familiar with astronomy, I believe faint fuzzy would communicate quite well to those people. For more experienced observers, I am sure most of us would use more appropriate terms such as globulars, nebula, galaxies and so on. I can't imagine me being at a star party with some of my club members and saying, 'what faint fuzzies are you going to observe tonight.



#30 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22591
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 August 2014 - 03:35 PM

Well, some ARE faint.  And some ARE fuzzy.

But, of course, not all.

 

One thing that has come home to me about a newbie's first look at an object like a galaxy is that the remark, "What am I looking at?  That little spot in the middle?"

just indicates that the observer doesn't know what to look for.

I ask:

 

Apparent Sz (visual impression): V.Large / Large / Medium / Small / V.Small/ Stellar / Other_______________________   
Apparent Overall Brightness: Bright / EZ / Moderate / Faint / Very Faint / At Limit
Apparent Shape: Round / Round-Oval / Oval / Elong. / Very Elong. / Lenticular / Other______________________________

Nature/shape of core and nucleus____________________________
Superimposed stars_______________________________________
Edge definition___________________________________________
Brightness Gradient_______________________________________
Core % of visible galaxy___________________________________

Features of note____________________________________________________________
Comments on Field_________________________________________________________
Ease of visibility____________________________________________________________
Comments____________________________________________________________________

 

And you know what?  Even most beginners can answer most of the questions and give a pretty good description for a log.

(I ask a different set of questions for other kinds of objects).

The first impression is always one of faintness and lack of details, i.e. a "faint fuzzy".

Though the faintness and the fuzziness seem to disappear once someone looks for particular things.

 

Is the term a poor term?  Yeah, probably.  But it's used with a lot of affection. :flowerred:



#31 Philler

Philler

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 03:52 PM

We all have terms that annoy us. Faint fuzzy never annoyed me. Calling Nevada 'Nevahda' does, as does 'Frisco' to people I know from San Francisco. For people not all that familiar with astronomy, I believe faint fuzzy would communicate quite well to those people. For more experienced observers, I am sure most of us would use more appropriate terms such as globulars, nebula, galaxies and so on. I can't imagine me being at a star party with some of my club members and saying, 'what faint fuzzies are you going to observe tonight.

 

I wonder what would happen if an astronomy site, like this one, starting having a Faint Fuzzy Observing Forum instead of calling it a Deep Sky Observing Forum. I wonder what kind of reaction that would bring?


Edited by Philler, 18 August 2014 - 05:02 PM.


#32 Philler

Philler

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 03:59 PM

 

 

Really?  The term "faint fuzzy" annoys you?  To paraphrase Herrointment up thread, they is what they are.   :grin:

 

Really? "they is what they are"  And are faint fuzzies all you see when you look at them in your scope?

 

Nope.  And no one said that faint fuzzies are all that can be seen.  But many targets are both dim and indistinct.  Is there a point in here somewhere?

 

There's no question that in every scope from every location there is a significant percentage of all that is observable for which the term "faint fuzzy" is an efficient descriptor.  It is a variable subset of all that is visible through a given telescopes under a given set of conditions.  There are objects that appear as faint fuzzies in my 80mm f/6 that yield loads of detail in my 16" f/5.1.  

 

By analogy it's like weather - a variable circumstance-dependent condition.  "It's grey and dreary."  It's not grey and dreary every day, nor from every location on any given day, but when it is grey and dreary from the observer's position, it's fair to dub it "grey and dreary".  

 

So if we were to not use the descriptive term "faint fuzzy" to describe the subset of targets that appear as both faint and indistinct in a given scope under a given set of conditions, what term would be more efficient and descriptive in your opinion?

 

Now here's a term that bugs me..."Semi-APO".  "APO" is binary - either it is or it isn't.  Like a light switch.  The light cannot be "semi-on".   :lol:

 

Regards,

 

Jim 

 

 

Jim, if you will re read what I have posted I answer your question on what I would call them.



#33 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10476
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 18 August 2014 - 04:01 PM

The problem with faint fuzzies is you can't hang them from your car's rear view mirror....



#34 Feidb

Feidb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1691
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 18 August 2014 - 04:18 PM

I picked your reply because you seem to take what i said personally and I don't know why. You seem so defensive about this. I was simply expressing my opinion and was not singling out anyone here.

 

 

BTW, in the thousands of "faint fuzzies" you have observed, do you see any detail in any of them, or are they just faint fuzz balls?

 

 

Philler, I wasn't taking what you said personally, just stating my personal opinion, thus so many "I"s in the response. I see plenty of detail in most of those faint fuzzies, though some boil down to faint fuzzies anyway, with little more than just a hint of an oval shape or a slightly dense core with a halo or something.

 

I was also just expressing my opinion like you. You couldn't have singled me out since I hadn't replied to it yet, so how could I take offense? Nope, I've just seen other threads on what some consider offensive or irritating or whatever terms in our hobby. I agree with some but I'd hate to see this carried too far. That's all. I have no problem with you ranting. Just like everyone else.



#35 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14395
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 18 August 2014 - 04:24 PM

Jim, if you will re read what I have posted I answer your question on what I would call them.

 

I've reread all your posts, and I still don't know what your preferred name would be.

 

This sounds like a Political Correctness issue. Perhaps we should call them "The visibility-challenged, poorly-resolved celestial objects formerly known as Faint Fuzzies".

 

They am what they be. They're faint, and fuzzy in appearance. I always warn guests to the observatory that the list of great objects is short, so spend some time looking at each one 'cause this is as good as it gets.


  • cwilson likes this

#36 David Pavlich

David Pavlich

    Transmographied

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 27229
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Mandeville, LA USA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 04:50 PM

  I call them gray smudges or it looks like a cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey or an unfocused bunch of stars.  I've never had a bad reaction at an outreach event.  :shrug:

 

David



#37 Philler

Philler

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 04:58 PM

 

Jim, if you will re read what I have posted I answer your question on what I would call them.

 

I've reread all your posts, and I still don't know what your preferred name would be.

 

This sounds like a Political Correctness issue. Perhaps we should call them "The visibility-challenged, poorly-resolved celestial objects formerly known as Faint Fuzzies".

 

They am what they be. They're faint, and fuzzy in appearance. I always warn guests to the observatory that the list of great objects is short, so spend some time looking at each one 'cause this is as good as it gets.

 

 

How about galaxies, open clusters, diffuse nebulae, dark nebulae, planetary nebulae, globular clusters, IOW, deep sky objects.  Does that answer the question?

 

And this has nothing to do with political correctness and nothing to do with politics.  But if the term Faint Fuzzies is so near and dear to you maybe you should start a Faint Fuzzies Forum. 



#38 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13652
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:10 PM

Eh, faint fuzzy never bothered me. I probably use 'ghostly puff of smoke' more often. It depends on the specific target, scope, and sky conditions, but unless you are blessed with dark, transparent skies it often takes time and patience to see much more than that for faint diffuse objects.



#39 CCD-Freak

CCD-Freak

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Whitesboro,Texas

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:10 PM

When showing very dim objects that are hard to see I will explain to the visitor that the object is just that due to it's immense distance.  Then I will say "we jokingly call them "Faint Fuzzies" and most people laugh and agree that it is a good "tongue in cheek" description.  Then you show them a showpiece object like M42 to "knock their socks off". 

 

John

CCD-Freak



#40 choran

choran

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2012

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:16 PM

I don't particularly like the term "faint fuzzy" only because of its cuteness.  Sort of the same reason I could never bring myself to order a "McFlurry" or "Happy Meal".

I prefer "dim smudge".  LOL



#41 sg6

sg6

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:42 PM

I think that the term is unfortunately accurate, and is as likely used to rebalance people's idea that everything looks like a hubble/chandea/spitzer image.

 

We were referring to Andromeda, M31, as a nebula until not that long ago, so even Andromeda did not stand out as a well defined object otherwise we may have grasped it was a galaxy much sooner.

 

Hubble has done lots for astonomy but a lot getting into astronmomy expect to see similar, even when they say they don't.

I have seen quesions where to find object ABC that the person has seen from the Chandara scope and why dose it not look like the image from that. Chandra is X-ray.



#42 shortbread13

shortbread13

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Los Angeles County, CA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:49 PM

The first time I saw M13 at a star party (lots of LP, Moon out), I wish I was told it would be a faint fuzzy!  I expected to see M13 as I did in books.



#43 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14395
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 18 August 2014 - 06:24 PM

 

How about galaxies, open clusters, diffuse nebulae, dark nebulae, planetary nebulae, globular clusters, IOW, deep sky objects.  Does that answer the question?

 

And this has nothing to do with political correctness and nothing to do with politics.  But if the term Faint Fuzzies is so near and dear to you maybe you should start a Faint Fuzzies Forum. 

 

Well, some of those are faint fuzzies, and some aren't. You would make no distinction between M57 and PK107-2.1 (described in the NSOG as "an extremely faint, diffuse disk")? That'd be popular with guests!

 

As far as a new forum goes, I'm not the one whining. I don't mind the term, and I think I'll stay right here.

Faint fuzzy! Faint fuzzy! Faint fuzzy! (Neener neener!)  :D


  • Carol L and cwilson like this

#44 Philler

Philler

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 August 2014 - 07:19 PM

I think I know the solution to this problem: I just have not drank the Faint Fuzzy Kool-aide!  I need to get some a drink a bottle before it's too late for me. Tell me, does it come in different flavors and colors?  I prefer the sky blue kind.  Maybe once I drink a few bottles I'll see the light of faint fuzzidom.  And then all of us can sing the praises of scoping for faint fuzzies!



#45 choran

choran

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2012

Posted 18 August 2014 - 07:32 PM

If you are going to become the leader of the anti-fuzzy forces, you must check the spelling of "Fuzzidom" (sic).

Only kidding, but seriously, this isn't really worth arguing about, is it?


 


Edited by choran, 18 August 2014 - 07:58 PM.

  • Fuzzyguy and cwilson like this

#46 Dennis_S253

Dennis_S253

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1682
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2011
  • Loc: West Central Florida

Posted 18 August 2014 - 08:15 PM

Last night a was sicker than I think I have ever been. I couldn't keep a darn thing down. I took my 10x50 binos out and set them by the door. Everytime I ran out to throw up I grabbed the binos. It was the best night in months. All I could see were faint fuzzies. My body was shaking so bad, I was dehydrated and hadn't not ate in 24 hrs. Faint fuzzy does not bother me. That's how I felt also.

#47 choran

choran

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2012

Posted 18 August 2014 - 08:31 PM

That, my friends, is dedication!



#48 Ed Holland

Ed Holland

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2084
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2010
  • Loc: San Jose, CA and Oxford, UK

Posted 18 August 2014 - 11:16 PM

I am not particularly keen on the term faint fuzzy, then again, nor am I especially patient in hunting out many of them, often coming up short in patches of sky that are know to be burgeoning with objects. This is not helped by the sky at my location. The term does describe what is apparent to the eye, but not the nature of the object, which can be near, far, large or small etc. Then again we all observe with different priorities, and similarly have different tastes in language.



#49 DarkSkysRFun

DarkSkysRFun

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Posted 18 August 2014 - 11:59 PM

cotton balls.. 



#50 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 19 August 2014 - 01:20 AM

I think I know the solution to this problem: I just have not drank the Faint Fuzzy Kool-aide!  I need to get some a drink a bottle before it's too late for me. Tell me, does it come in different flavors and colors?  I prefer the sky blue kind.  Maybe once I drink a few bottles I'll see the light of faint fuzzidom.  And then all of us can sing the praises of scoping for faint fuzzies!

 

The reality:

A visual observer observing galaxies and nebulae, because of the poor resolution of the human eye at low light levels, cannot resolve most of the detail present in image.  These are details are easily captured camera used with a relatively small telescope.. 

 

Thus one has two aspects to consider.. many objects are indeed very faint and they are fuzzy, details that exist cannot be seen..  Ergo, Faint and Fuzzy.. . The fact that I call them faint fuzzies does not mean I strive any less harder to see what detail might be visible, it's just a recognition of reality. 

 

Jon








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics