LadyAstronomer
Bookworm
Reged: 11/15/07
Posts: 3007
Loc: Library of Congress
|
|
"University of Toronto scientists used the Gemini North telescope
on Mauna Kea in Hawai'i to take images of the young star 1RXS
J160929.1-210524 (which lies about 500 light-years from Earth) and a
candidate companion of that star. They also obtained spectra to
confirm the nature of the companion, which has a mass about eight (8)
times that of Jupiter, and lies roughly 330 times the Earth-Sun
distance away from its star. (For comparison, the most distant planet
in our solar system, Neptune, orbits the Sun at only about 30 times
the Earth-Sun distance.) The parent star is similar in mass to the
Sun, but is much younger."
Full Press Release and Image: First Picture of Likely Planet around Sun-like Star
Preprint of the paper is here: Direct Imaging and Spectroscopy of a Planetary Mass Candidate Companion to a Young Solar Analog
--------------------
"Grown-ups never understand anything for themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1370
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
Cool image! The spectra are cool also (hey I'm a spectroscopist). I wonder what other more molecules that they have detected.
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
Edited by jupiterzkool (09/15/08 04:57 PM)
|
Charlie B
super member
Reged: 03/22/08
Posts: 171
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Quote:
The spectra are cool also
They seemed rather warm to me.
Charlie B
--------------------
Meade SN-8, DS-90, AT-66
DSI Pro II (Schuler Filters), DSI-C, LPI, Canon XTi
AIP4WIN, Nebulosity, DSS, Registrax, GIMP
running on Dell 1420 with Vista
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
Thanks 'LadyAstronomer'...love that first link you gave (the one with the combined image).
Now please...help explain, Charlie B, and Scott 'Jupiterizcool'...1) how many 'hundreths of an arc-second'..is that 'composite image of parentstar and 'presumed planet' image showing that 'crisp planet-disc', and 'crisp outter star region of pillars of gas'?
This sort of 'combinded image' especially has me wondering about that 'stars photospheric toungues of gas'...is this 'empty-magnification'...'computerized processed structure'...or are those 'cow-licks of hot photosphere' really there?
So for my understanding folks...how small, what fraction of an arc-second is the separation between parent star and presumed planet? Thanks again for the 'image'...but I wonder how much of that 'image' is 'reactive-optics'...and how much is 'computer-processing'?
charlie guevara NJ,US
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
So for my understanding folks...how small, what fraction of an arc-second is the separation between parent star and presumed planet?
The plate scale is right there on the image - a bar representing 1" (1 arcsecond). And the article abstract states the separation is 2.22".
The preprint has full information about how the data was obtained. They used an adaptive optics system, but the image processing is pretty basic - just dithering and co-adding. No mention of fancy super-resolution or maximum entropy methods.
Resolving two objects 2.22" apart may sound easy, but note that the star is about 1000 times brighter than the star. That's a difference of 7.5 magnitude. I don't think that's possible without adaptive optics.
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
Edited by Kobayashi (09/15/08 11:26 PM)
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
I thought 'that parent star is 500 ly from our telescopes? How can a star that is 'a little over 1 arc-second in diameter' on the 'combined image'...be within :'the same size range as our Sun...only younger'?
We know our Sun's diameter...is this image stateing that at 500 ly our Sun '?subtends?'/ appears one arc-second in diameter? And that 'presumed planet disc' is huge (only thirty times Jupiters diameter?
I am now more puzzled by that image...especially the crisp planet disc, and that specific struture on the 'parent stars photosphere layer'! Is that 'scale bar in error? A Sun sized star at 500 ly being one arc-second in diameter? charlie guevara NJ,US
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
Whoops..the fact that that 'presumed planet is 330 times the Earth-Sun distance' really gives me a 'specific distance number'...and at 500 ly that dosen't seem compatible with 'a one arc-second diameter star' shown in that 'image'. And yes the 'presumed planet is eight Jupiter masses...not '30 times Jupiters diameter' as I posted above.
The size scales do not seem proper...using the "330 times the Earth-Sun distance"...and at 500 ly...it seems wrong! Please someone (no hurry)...tell me 1) 330 'Earth-Sun distance units' agrees with that image scale?!!
2) Please someone tell me our Sun at 500 light years...appears(?subtends?) 1 arc-second in diameter?
charlie guevara NJ,US
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
The planet is 330 AU from the star. The star system is 150 parsec (500 light-years) away from us. So that's consistent with a 2.2" apparent separation. (330AU/150pc = 5.0x10^13m/4.6x10^18m = 1.1x10^-5 radian = 2.2 arcsec)
The star looks like it's almost 1" diameter in the image, but I think that's just because of the brightness. You're looking at the halo created by scattered light.
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
Edited by Kobayashi (09/16/08 01:39 AM)
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
p.s. The actual apparent size of the star should be on the order of tens of milli-arcseconds. You need a visible light interferometer with a 1-mile baseline to resolve it.
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
Edited by Kobayashi (09/16/08 01:45 AM)
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
Thank you, Kobayashi! I think' you imply that 'all those 'licks of photophere gas-jets' on the serrated border of the 'parent star' are artifact!?? And certainly the 'dipicted presumed planet disc' in the 'image' could certainly not be the relative size it shows compared to it's star!?? ( if the apparent diameter of the parent star is in range of:'TENS OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS'...what 'range of milliarcseconds would be the 'disc size' of the 'presummed planet'?! And so the only valid aspect of that 'image'...is the relative distance between the star and 'presumed planet'...related to that 'one arcsecond scale bar'...all the rest is :simulation, or artifact. This really seems mainly a processed collection of data...dipicted as a simulation...not an image.
charlie guevara NJ,US thanks for the calculations, Kobayshi.
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
I think' you imply that 'all those 'licks of photophere gas-jets' on the serrated border of the 'parent star' are artifact!??
I don't see anything in the paper to indicate otherwise. The image simply shows a star and a companion object, and shows that the telescope's adaptive optics system was able to resolve one from the other very clearly, and measure the separation accurately. This also gives us confidence that the spectrum of the planet shown in the paper has very little contamination from the parent star.
Quote:
This really seems mainly a processed collection of data...dipicted as a simulation...not an image.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's an actual image. The nature and extent of the image processing is comparable to amateurs do with RegiStax and similar software. There's no "simulation" involved.
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
Thanks for your patient explainations, Ken. Both the 'OP HEADLINE', and at the link..."first picture.../first image" are the significant 'new view'...exciting offering. Many 'new and exciting achievements in science'....DO NOT CALL THE PUBLIC OFFERING A :"first image"...or : "first picture".
Proof of metabolic activity on the Mars lander 'robotic growth-chamber module'...would not state:"first image of lifeforms on Mars"/ "first picture of life-forms on Mars".
That 'one arcsecond scale bar' nested in a collection of two(2) DOTS...would be as valid as the 'quasi-visual simulation' dipicted in that: "first picture of a star and it's presumed planet" /"first image of a star and it's presumed planet".
Amatuer imagers 'images/ pictures' dipict structures which orbiting off-planet telescopes agree with in structure, despite different 'stacking/processing data treatments'. The 'first picture of a star and it's planet', the 'first image of a star and it's planet'....is primarily an important 'data set dipicted by simulated images'...troubling to call this 'a first picture' to a forum of observational amatuer scientist/hobbyists.
Specifically the 'treatment of that planet disc', and the 'treatment of that parent star' are 'implying a visual picture/visual image'...with the 'headline'/ 'this treatment of data sets to look like a visual image'...it's troubling . A 'real image' of Ganymeade I was viewing from my NE NJ driveway a few weeks ago...had awfully similar scale between 'parent planet and Ganymeade', as that 'first star with it's planet/first image'...except Ganymeade was 'pulling out and away from Jupiter at a location of '3-o-clock' of Jupiters disc.
Again I thank you, Ken for specific quantitative and patient explainations to my 'problems with this:'simulation touted as a: "first image" of a star and it's planet.
What atronomic-imagers do in 'stacking/processing'...is not leading to a 'simulated image complete with tounges of photospheric active structures'...and an absurdly large 'planet disc' of a system:'the Sun size star and it's planet 500 light years away'....but it's the 'title I find trouble with..."first picture/ first image of a star and it's planet"...the science achievement is deeply resonant with our exciting growth of understanding and outreach as earthlings. charlie guevara NJ,US
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
What the heck are you talking about? The headline of the press release is "First Picture of Likely Planet around Sun-like Star." Which it is. It's an actual image, it clearly shows a "likely planet" near a "sun-like star", and it's the first time something like this has been observed. Which part of this are you objecting to?
Perhaps you are missing the fact that most extra-solar planets are only detected spectroscopically, by measuring the Doppler shift of the parent star and observing a wobble caused by a planet. It's a strong evidence, but not as compelling and informative as an actual image that shows a distinct separate dot next to the star.
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1370
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
Charlie, perhaps downloading the paper will clear things up for you?
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
|
jayscheuerle
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 3096
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
All digital images are processed collections of data, even the ones in your digital camera.
--------------------
12" Green Goblin (trusser w/Protstar secondary and OWL refigured primary)• 6" f/5 Eero2 ball-scope • 6" f/5 Frankenscope • Garrett Optical 10x50 binos • Edmund 8" yoke-mounted red-tube reflector • Edmund 6" GEQ red-tube reflector (on loan to Dad)
Gone, but with lessons learned:
Skyquest XT8 • NexSTar 8i • Eeroscope 6" f/5 ball(sacrifice was not in vain) • Vixen ED80sf • Edmund red-tube 4.25" f/10 • Edmund Astroscan
Facts are stubborn things.
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
It's a detection of :'a star and it's possible planet'...that "picture'" with the inserted one arcsecond scale bar...is not the same as 'the visual image' my digital camera records for me. The Canon dslr 'pictures' my simple camera records data for me also can be 'openned in Paint/ stretched/scewed/parts deleted/etc....etc. '. None of my camera 'harsh processing of the raw data collected'...could be fairly called: 'clearly a picture', or 'actual picture'...especially if the 'harshly processed collected camera data was of a close and familiar person whom I know very well 'in person'.
The spectroscopic data set collected and processed 'clearly detects presence of a star and possible planet', that data set 'actually detects that star and presumed planet'....the inserted one arcsecond reference bar is valid ONLY FOR THE SEPARATION OF A STAR WHICH IS NOT 'IMAGED'/ NOT 'PICTURED'. All the rest of that:'simulated visual image of a star and it's planet'..has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT ONE ARCSECOND SCALE BAR, ...not the size/shape/color of the planet, nor the star, scales all 'thrown out'/ 'textures/colors made up (simulated)'...I could go on and on, Ken...I won't.
My post above notes 'trouble with the quasi-visual treatment of a data set...to make it 'look like a visual image/picture seen with optics'. Perhaps if 'I threw in horizon silhouettes of tall pine trees with that 'simulated image'...to imply I 'took the first picture just above my tree line'...it would be more troubling for me to call it:"a first picture of a star and its planet"?
The "data is observed/detected for the first time"...that is not: "a first picture of a star and it's planet", Ken. I insist you hold: 'astronomy related news broadcasts to a high standard of accurate journalism'...we need educated citizen advocates of astronomy/astrophysics/planetary science...that 'simulation with the one arcsecond scale bar'...is not: "a first picture of planet arouind "normal" sun-like star".
charlie guevara NJ,US
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1370
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
 I see nothing wrong with this image, even after reading their methodology in their preprint. Perhaps you should contact the authors or the press office at Gemini if you have questions about it.
Regardless as to whether you think it is an "image" or a "simulated image", the point is that the planet and the star were detected as well separated bodies for the first time and what is presented is much more realistic than an artist conception.
-S
P.S. You might want to lay off the caffeine.  
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
Edited by jupiterzkool (09/19/08 01:08 AM)
|
Mister T
sage
Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 250
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
I don't know what those guys are fussing about, but if you look reeeeeeal close you can see someone waving at us!!!
--------------------
Tony
"After the Laws of Physics, everything else is opinion"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Oberwerk 11x70 Binoc
old camera tripod
mags and books
Meade 60mm refractor
Elmira-Corning Astronomical Society,
http://www.corning-cc.edu/visitors/observatory
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
Okay Scott...your correct there is nothing wrong...and yes it is tedious and no big deal... and Ken really openned my eyes to the 'quick math leading to range of 2.4 or so arc second separation between star and 'planet'...and although I repeatedly thanked Steve for his patience and 'views'...I THANK YOU YET AGAIN STEVE for your thoughtful replies to my concerns.
Tony has the appropriate forum 'positive cheer' ( I dark sky observe in Afton,NY...Tony).
But 'plodding and perhaps tedious in my communicating my problems with a scientific/astronometric institution...chooseing that news-header'...I do not think remarks like: 'lay off or go easy on the caffiene', 'I don't know what your talking about...', 'it's just the same as stacking/processing used by astro-amatuer imagers'...'it's what your digital camera does'...'it's an actual picture'....I expected more of 'my concern on the simulated image touted as an actual image' to be dealt with by Steve, etc., etc., . My failure to communicate!
In the 'sketching forums' a nice couple share with me how they :'sketch the views of their telescope ...off their laptop computer linked to their telescope'.
An ambitious southwest USA 'astro-bed&breakfast' sells on-line telescope rentals of their robotic-remotely operated darksky telescopes.
Because I read the observatories report (the paper incorrectly labelled that simulation 'a first image', that 'image' is within the actual report), after 'viewing the first link'...I posted concerns for this 'lack of proper concept'...in calling that 'constructed simulated picture'..."a first image".
Imanuel Kant had lots to say about 'the windows/ frames of reference through which we precieve 'our reality'...my concern with calling this simulation 'an actual image' is not that deep...and not caffiene driven!
Thanks all for keeping it real! charlie guevara NJ,US
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1370
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
Charlie,
Apologies for the caffeine remark, but it was meant as an attempt at humor.
When it comes down to it, the data was taken in the infrared. It can never be an image in the traditional sense, i.e. we would never be able to see it with the naked eye at these wavelengths. 
-S
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
Edited by jupiterzkool (09/19/08 11:30 PM)
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6880
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Seems to me that a number of years ago, a similar announcement was made about the Van Briesbock objects VB8 and VB10, possibly as early as the late 1980's (both turned out to be a very cool late M-class stars). That sort of faded away, but a number of years later, a similar claim was made about a different star and a companion object (the companion apparently turned out to be more distant). I guess I will wait until we get a little more data before this one is a confirmed "first planetary image". Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
Because I read the observatories report (the paper incorrectly labelled that simulation 'a first image', that 'image' is within the actual report), after 'viewing the first link'...I posted concerns for this 'lack of proper concept'...in calling that 'constructed simulated picture'..."a first image".
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. It's not a simulation; it's an actual image, made by combining several raw images taken with a telescope, with help from an adaptive optics system. The telescope focuses light, and the adaptive optics correct for atmospheric distortion. The result is that the image is formed on a CCD detctor, and recorded. Several such images are combined to reduce noise, as is done when amateurs use RegiStax to combine webcam images. In what way is this a "simulation" and not an "image"? There's nothing here that can be called a simulation; it's just very basic image processing.
So maybe you can explain to me, what is your definition of an "image," and in what way does this one not qualify?
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
Edited by Kobayashi (09/21/08 11:06 PM)
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
Hello Ken, The 'Gemini Observatory' gives an absurdly enlarged planet (yes they surround it with a red circle too), they have a 'size ratio between star and her planet totally made up ( and as I said...very similar to relationship between Jupiter and her moon,Ganymeade), the distance between TWO DOTS of merged data sets is the only thing the inserted one arcsecond scale marker relates to.
There IS NO 'FIRST IMAGE'...a sonogram of our dear child was an:"image", 'infra-red IMAGES abound in our reality'...this IS NOT AN IMAGE...IT'S A SIMULATION SUGGESTING AN OPTICAL IMAGE...NO TRUE SCALE BETWEEN SIZE OF PLANET DISC AND SIZE OF PARENT STAR...okay 'the brilliance of the star gives false impression of 'one arcsecond star diameter'...so what's 'you excuse for huge size of 'planet disc'?...Why in an observational activity with deep grounding in science do you 'have a block' over: 'a simulation to represent an important and new data-set...IS NOT A FIRST IMAGE?
Why 1)with no true size ratio, 2) with no true color of that HUGE planet disc, 3) oddly...no correction for photosheric limit of 'the parent star we know to be our Suns size (but younger)...why do you resist calling a simulation of a data set what it is...a simulated picture?
With robotic telescopes/microscopes/oceanic sub-surface and surface recorders/satellite imagers/planetary off earthprobes...now more than ever we need be correct in :'what is a first image', and what is a data set processed as a simulated picture.
I lastly specifically 'reach out to you, Ken...1) the planet disc size is TOTALLY MADE UP, 2) no indication of relative star size(with respest to that huge planet disc), colors of that huge planet disc arbitray...I say this demands calling 'it' a simulation. Go slow on me, the technology, my digital camera, astronomic 'processing/image stacking'...please answer for this simple but important problem I have with:"Gemini Observatory first image".
thanks much...but so far I hear nothing about my concerns...this is a simulation of important data set.
charlie guevara, NJ,US
In highschool we played 'the planets'...you can guess how far from 'the flagpole is the Sun'...was Earth, was Mars, was Jupiter! That 'simulation has no realitybased sized ratios of the depicted planet disc, of the 'parent star(said to be size of our Sun,only younger)
Ken, thanks for shareing...but forget about me, forget about caffiene, forget about 'Gemini Observatory'...data set are depicted all the time..."first Image" demands an image...not a simulated image.
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
OK, I think what you're trying to say is that "an image of <something>" implies that it shows details in <something>.
I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. An image is simply data showing brightness as a function of position. It's a measured map of brightness.
If someone did a spectroscopic analysis of the star, deduce the existence of a planet based on the Doppler shift of the star, then made a picture showing what the star/planet system should look like, then that would be a simulation.
But that's not what happened here. They pointed a telescope at this star, acquired some images with a CCD, and said "hey look, there's a small dot 2.2 arcseconds away from the star." There is no other type of observation involved in making that picture. It's 100% honest and correct to call that an "image of a possible planet." I can't think of what else you'd call it.
If someone took a wide-field photo of Jupiter showing but not resolving the Galilean satellites, would you object to calling it "an image of Jupiter and its moons"? What possible rationale would you have to call it "an image of Jupiter and a simulation of its moons"??
Or for that matter, any image of a double star has the sizes of the stars severely exaggerated. This picture of Albiero, for example, shows the two stars much larger than to scale, because that's the resolving limit of the telescope/camera they used. But that's still an "image of Albireo," not a simulation.
Quote:
Hello Ken, The 'Gemini Observatory' gives an absurdly enlarged planet (yes they surround it with a red circle too), they have a 'size ratio between star and her planet totally made up ( and as I said...very similar to relationship between Jupiter and her moon,Ganymeade),
The objects look oversized because it's an actual image and not a simulation. They show up as large discs because that's the resolving limit of the telescope.
Quote:
the distance between TWO DOTS of merged data sets is the only thing the inserted one arcsecond scale marker relates to.
Actually, it also relates to the resolution and point spread function (PSF) of the telescope. It's significant that the planet looks like a ~0.1 arcsecond disc; it tells us that's what the resolution of that telescope system is. We can also see that the PSF has a broad base, a "halo" of light about 1" arcsecond, so that's about the limit of where it can detect a very dim companion next to a bright star.
Quote:
Why 1)with no true size ratio, 2) with no true color of that HUGE planet disc, 3) oddly...no correction for photosheric limit of 'the parent star we know to be our Suns size (but younger)...why do you resist calling a simulation of a data set what it is...a simulated picture?
1) The telescope system is nowhere near good enough to show a true size ratio. But it is good enough to resolve the two as distinct dots, and give us the relative brightness and position, which is darn impressive and worth bragging about (or publishing).
2) Actually it does show a "true" color because they combined images taken in different wavelength bands. At least, it's as "true" as your average color photo. The paper also shows an actual measured spectrum.
3) We can deduce the star's size by measuring its spectrum and applying our knowledge of stellar evolution. But if we used such knowledge to tweak the image, then it's no longer a real image; it becomes a simulation.
Quote:
I lastly specifically 'reach out to you, Ken...1) the planet disc size is TOTALLY MADE UP, 2) no indication of relative star size(with respest to that huge planet disc),
Once again - the discs are big because it's an actual image, and not corrected for anything. If we used knowledge from other types of observations, then it becomes a "made up" picture.
--------------------
-- Ken Kobayashi
Edited by Kobayashi (09/22/08 09:17 AM)
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1370
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
Ken,
Nice responses.
Charlie,
I really don't think you are getting the process involved with imaging astrophysical objects. I am not sure how folk here can better explain it than they already have. The paper linked above gives the technique used. If you still do not understand after reading it, I encourage you to read more about modern astronomical imaging techniques. Perhaps someone can recommend a good book or journal article.
Regardless, of whether you think of this an image or simulation, that is not the important point. It is the science that can be attained by resolving both objects and observing them individually over time. One cannot learn much about the planet without this first time observation.
Best regards,
Scott
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
|
charlie g
sage
Reged: 10/05/07
Posts: 290
|
|
It resolved or showed two data sets, dipicted as Dots. Please don't 'break in with how impressive this is...we all cheer the science achievements'. Nothing about the position of : two points of data sets, with a one arcsecond scale bar overlayed..."is a first image"...it's a simulation. Please don't 'drift into commercial film rendition of true color', don't bring up:'first time observation of a planet'. A 'radar image of Venus below its weather', an 'optical image of Gaspara', these are 'images'...not simulations.
Don't bring up:'first time observations', Scott...simulation images are constructed from observations all the time (thank you for clapping hands for simple points of discussion, yet remaining silent on my various points of concern(calling a simulated image of data sets a 'first image').
Your particular comment, which your list as: " 3)We can deduce the stars size by measureing its spectrum and applying our knowledge of stellar evolution .", Ken , this process is exactly the reason this 'first image is a simulation of that system 500 light years out there.
The only content of that 'first image' are position between two points (not discs/not even dots...as points...no 'real color assignable to points'. Those interwoven reds/greens/whatever...have no assignability to 'points' of plotted data sets.
Quietly I did read the paper, as well as the first link, Scott. It getts boreing pretty quick to have your 'saw repeated' of: 'your not getting the process'. Astrophysical simulations are not the same as astrophysical imageing, Scott. I really don't think your getting my concern, Scott. Perhaps you can read this post and specifically react to : 'Kens point 3)...dedeuced size from knowledge of stellar evolution'...this can make for important/valid...simulated images. charlie guevara NJ,US
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1370
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
Charlie,
Perhaps learning more about the NIRI camera will help? It has a 1024 x 1024 array with each pixel having 0.0219 arc sec at f/32. It takes images. Nothing is "simulated" about it.
-S
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: