Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Mr. Bill
Carpal Tunnel
  
Reged: 02/09/05
Posts: 2761
Loc: Just passing through.....
|
|
Lots of eye-brain-mind stuff going on here.....
-------------------- 10x50 Fujinon FMT-SX binos
15x70 AP binos + Paragon p-mount
Oberwerk 100BT 45 degree + Hercules fork mount
120mm f/5 Orion achromat + Moonlite focuser
140mm f/5.7 Vixen NeoAchro Petzvel refractor
150mm f/6.5 Antares achromat
150mm f/8 homemade achromat....EE Barnard MW Sweeper
8 inch newt with f/5 Swayze mirror
10 inch f/4.7 Orion newt + Paracorr
15 inch f/5 Discovery split tube
35mm Pan, 26mm Nagler, 17mm Nagler, 13mm Ethos, 8mm Ethos
Member IDA
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6787
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Mauro Da Lio posted:
Quote:
Quote: I would read the papers *if* I had access to them
Go to the nearest university library and get it.
I already told you, I am too far away from UNL's library (and I work nights), so I don't have access to them. I CAN'T read them right now. Why can't you understand this?
Quote:
Quote: The Oxygen III line filter experiment I described earlier *does* indicate that the reddish color I was seeing in the nebulosity was due to red light from M42 getting into my eye and not some illusion as you seem to allege.
You have no way to prove this. I show you how a porcess tha is alway active in our mind may literally invent red where there only is black. How can you be sure that the same did not happen?
And you, my friend, have *no* proof that my observations were not accurate! If the nebula looked reddish with the OIII filter having the red passband but showed no red coloration when using the OIII filter that has no red transmission, this is proof enough. If my eyes are incapable of seeing dim red at all in M42 (as you seem to be stating), then why did a change in filter make a difference?? The reason is that I *did* see red in the nebula because that red secondary passband is the *only* difference between the two filters!
You keep arguing based only on lab experiments set up under conditions which may not accurately replicate those in the actual visual observations of bright nebulae. Such studies can be a *guide* as to where low-light level color vision becomes unreliable, but as Don and others have already pointed out to you, the conditions which people observe M42 with large apertures are bright enough that color vision is definitely possible, *including seeing RED*!
Quote:
In addition I have Lumicon UHC which incidentally have a similar red leakage. I measured it with my own hands (so I beleive it is correct) using a research class instrument (the spectra are not from some official datashet).
Here it is: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6869/1731/1600/logaritmico.jpg />
That is nice, but I was *not* using a UHC filter! I was using an older Lumicon Oxygen III LINE filter!! It has a standard OIII passband about 118 Angstroms wide (FWHM) with peak transmission of 94% at the 5007 Angstrom line, and a broad red secondary passband which starts climbing upwards around 6100 Angstroms and reaches a transmission at H-alpha of between 85% and 90%. As I stated earlier, the spectrum of M42 in that wavelength range has little continuum emission with the dominant feature being the strong H-alpha line. Not all the Lumicon OIII filters produced at that time were exactly like this one (the actual profile and transmission of the red passband varied), but more than a few people have reported this feature and have used it to see red in M42. The red passband no longer exists with current Lumicon OIII filters, but it did then. If you want to see the variability of a few of the Lumicon filter transmission profiles (independently measured) I might suggest the following URL:
http://www.astroamateur.de/filter/oiii.html
In any case, the DGM Optics NPB has a *dedicated* H-alpha secondary passband, so it is in the correct location and at a high level of transmission. In large scopes, that filter does help bring out the faint reddish hues in M42 in a way somewhat like that older OIII filter did.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
I already told you, I am too far away from UNL's library (and I work nights), so I don't have access to them. I CAN'T read them right now. Why can't you understand this?
The fact that you cannot access the document does not entitle you to rebut it, nor to say it is trah. ou shold at least refrain from saying that it is wrong given the fact that "you see" not only colors, but a pink shade that is very similar to H-alpha (try to print four red squares of different color on four sheets, go into a dimly lit room and pick one casually, can you say which one it is? Does it look like in full light? NOPE).
PS I can send you the paper (I should not but... exceptionally).
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6787
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I already told you, I am too far away from UNL's library (and I work nights), so I don't have access to them. I CAN'T read them right now. Why can't you understand this?
The fact that you cannot access the document does not entitle you to rebut it, nor to say it is trah. ou shold at least refrain from saying that it is wrong given the fact that "you see" not only colors, but a pink shade that is very similar to H-alpha (try to print four red squares of different color on four sheets, go into a dimly lit room and pick one casually, can you say which one it is? Does it look like in full light? NOPE).
PS I can send you the paper (I should not but... exceptionally).
We don't seem to be communicating. I did *not* say the papers were trash! Where did you get that impression? I said that these lab experiments were set up under conditions which may not accurately replicate those in the actual visual observations of bright nebulae. Thus, the results may not represent what happens when some people with large telescopes view M42 at low to moderate powers. This does *not* mean that the papers are necessarily wrong, but as Don has already pointed out, there are definite questions as to how much the results can be directly applied to observations of bright emission nebulae. It looks like Don has read at least some of the papers you mentioned, so his opinion would matter here (and he has raised some valid points about how applicable they are to visual observations of nebulae). If experienced seasoned observers like Don Pensack, Bill Ferris, Dave Mitsky, and others report faint reds or pinks being visible in parts of M42 using large apertures, then I seriously doubt it is illusionary. They are pretty familiar with the little tricks the eye and brain can play on the unwary visual observer. If they say they saw red, then quite frankly, they saw it, and my little two-filter experiment supports their observations. Nothing you have stated so far will change that.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps. Especially if they weren't experienced astronomers. If the dark-adapted eye is the dominant eye, perception would be different than if the dark-adapted eye was not.
All your points are mentioned and cared in the "experimental procedure". Studies on dim ligth perception are of paramount importance in a large number of fileds (from military, road safety etc.). The authors do that professionally and there is a vast community who did similar studies (among which the peer reviewers of the paper). But there is a simple check... go to the library again and get that paper too and read "with your own eyes" how the experiments were carried out (BTW that is helpful to understand that person to person variation si not that large as long as people with normal sight are of concerns . BTW BTW all test people passed standard tests on visual acuity, color blindness (including minor blindeness which usually goes undetected).
Don... I think you are doing the devil's advocate too much... (although it is correct to question every detail).
So let me try to summarize:
1) State of the art knowledge (the beliefs) says there is mesopic and scotopic vision. In mesopic range there is real color perception which becomes rudimentary at the limit with scotopic. In scotopic there are illusion color perceptions that resembles the rudimentary perception in mesopic levels (and thus are very difficult to distinguish from real perception- on the other hands illusions arise from the fact that brain extract color information from luminance levels , which often corresponds to warm and cold colors). 2) Reported experience conflicts with knowledge only if we pretend that real colors are percieved below the threshold of cones. So far the common figure for this threshold stands between 17 and 18 (the latter meaning the ability to see the color of the sky in a full moon night).
Open points are: a) which is the exact threshold and how much does it vary from person to person and from color to color. b1) are there nebulae (or parts) that shine in the mesopic range for OIII? b2) are there nebulae (or parts) that shine in the mesopic range for H-aplha?
As for point a) there are these elements: - studies hint little variation of thresholds between the test persons, (the studies were not carried out on large numbers of test persons but sufficient to give a hint of the standard deviation (all testers had normal sight according to state of the art) - a similar attitude like limiting magnitude varies of 0.2-0.4 among people. I know you report more but these are my numbers and also thos reported by Brian Skiff http://www.astropix.com/HTML/L_STORY/SKYBRITE.HTM :
"Is it possible for someone with extremely unusual vision, like Steve O'Meara, to see the color blue in the night sky background?
Nope. Steve and I (and John Bortle) once made mag limit checks at the Texas Star Party using a photometric sequence around M3 in a 7-inch Starfire refractor. All three of us saw to the same limit---none of us has unusual vision, just a lot of experience. Steve's vision is unusual only in that he knows how to use it!"
As for point b1) there are few nebuale that shines above the threshold for OIII, Not many (the same M27 is 18.4 peak, M97 is 21.6).
As for point b2) one has to consider that eye sensitivity to H-alpha is about 2.5 magnitudes less than to OIII. Thus the point is: are there parts so bright in H-alpha to stimulate L-cones? 2.5 mags brighter than OIII?). The most correct test here is the H-aplha filter. You have only to check if you see something or otherwise. The OIII with red leak filter demands not to check is something is seen but wether something "red" is "really" seen (this short-circuit and inavalidate the test). With H-alpha filter you use rods/cones to detect wheter something is seen, that knowoing that only H-alpha is passed you knowk it has been detected. You said something is seen though the H-alpha in M42. If this happens it does not yet mean that red can be seen because the perception of red (at cognitive level) depends on the ratio between stimulation of rods to L-cones. If the same region emits a lot in OIII (which might be he case of the huygenian region) then the color is percived as green (the real color) despite the L-cones sees some H-alpha (but not strong enough to prevail). There are regions of M42 where H-alpha prevails but they are at surface magnitude 17+ (actually in V-band), which with the handicap of 2.5 mags less sensitivity of the eye are very unlikely to reach L-cones thresholds. So You shoold look wheter you see something with H-alpha filter in those regions.
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
I said that these lab experiments were set up under conditions which may not accurately replicate those in the actual visual observations of bright nebulae.
It is the last defense line to sustain that your percetion are more reliable. You no longer question the paper or the method, but "it does not exactly apply to my case". (The same is for the filter: "it was a OIII not a UHC - mine has a red leakage that starts a 6200 angstom, yours at 6100. the leakage is similar... but I bet you will claim not enough).
Edited by Mauro Da Lio (11/30/07 03:37 AM)
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6787
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I said that these lab experiments were set up under conditions which may not accurately replicate those in the actual visual observations of bright nebulae.
It is the last defense line to sustain that your percetion are more reliable. You no longer question the paper or the method, but "it does not exactly apply to my case". (The same is for the filter: "it was a OIII not a UHC - mine has a red leakage that starts a 6200 angstom, yours at 6100. the leakage is similar... but I bet you will claim not enough).
You just can't seem to get anything I say straight. My results are not "more reliable", but are definitely inconsistent with a claim that the red coloration is an illusion rather than reality. It isn't "my" case: it is the case of those experienced observers who have reported red in M42 when observing with large apertures. You have failed to recognize and fully appreciate what Don has been saying, falling back on your previous arguments. You dismiss the claims by people who say they have seen red in M42, as you previously claimed you were not going to do. Please try to read and understand what people are saying here. Right now, you aren't doing a really good job of this.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6787
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Mr. Bill wrote:
Quote:
If the "facts" don't match the experience of several veteran observers, maybe it's time to question the conclusions of the studies....
Well, yes and no. The studies under the conditions they produced are probably at least grossly valid. The problem again is two-fold, in that not everyone has the same sensitivity to red, and the intensities, wavelengths, and bandwidths which the studies were preformed at are probably not quite the same as those at least some of us see with our eyes when observing M42. However, the fact that Don did use an H-alpha filter and still saw red in M42 does indicate that he is seeing mainly the contribution of the H-alpha line. The "two-filter" Oxygen III example I gave also lends credence to those who report red in M42. Now what is normally reported by amateurs visually in the nebula is usually not very red, as what reds are seen are fairly subtle and many people may not see the reds at all. However, with enough aperture and eyes with better than average dim red sensitivity, visibility of at least some reddish coloration is definitely possible in the Orion Nebula and should not be dismissed out of hand just because of one overly-rigid interpretation of a laboratory experiment. Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Kaizu
sage
Reged: 08/17/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Finland
|
|
I have never seen colours in nebulas. I also havent look them through BIG telescope. I quess that, because the eye is most sensitive to green or yellow, people who begin to see colours, first see green. I do not believe that it was possible to see the nebulas in natural colour balance through any amateur telescope. I probably have very soon possibility to check my quess with 36" F3.5 folded Newton.
Kaizu
-------------------- Some thoughts are so wise that they don't make me laugh
http://www.kaiforssen.fi
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
I have not yet seen any comment about "color perception" 1 and 2.
http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/illusions.htm
and this is the same illusion:
http://forum.astrofili.org/userpix/1932_orione3_1.jpg
http://forum.astrofili.org/userpix/1932_orione5_1.jpg
wherever the gray is it tends to look reddish in a green dominant (one might have placed a gray patch in any place).
Edited by Mauro Da Lio (11/30/07 03:29 PM)
|
Kaizu
sage
Reged: 08/17/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Finland
|
|
Incredible. I didn't know that I can see so wrong. I have to be more carefully when comparing the brightnessies, especially the nebulas which are far from each other. The word things didn't work as they should because of my insufficient English. Anyway I have to check the spelling and still the letters are disordered.
Kaizu
-------------------- Some thoughts are so wise that they don't make me laugh
http://www.kaiforssen.fi
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
There is a way to test this, though. If the coloration disappears when an O-III filter is added, and reappears when the filter is removed, then real color perception is likely. If, on the other hand, the coloration is still seen with the O-III filter in place, then the colors are false and perception is guided by factors other than perception of real colors.
We did that one month ago (this is the link, unfortunately in italian http://visualreports.blogspot.com/2007/11/cr-w-novembre-2007.html). Actually we were looking to the bright wings (which are gray in the photo but which we -me and a handful of fellows- perceived as reddish).
Guess the results: I continued seeing reddish with the filter. Another friend saw the colors to disappear with the filter. And another, without filter was able to turn colors on and off simply convincing himself that there were or there were not colors!! I am not yoking. I also am able to make green and reddish disappear in M42 by simply concentrating ONLY on the wings or ONLY on the Trapezium... pardon the huygenian.... etc etc.
PS there is another possible objecton: when you put the OIII filter, the red parts of the nebula are dimmed, thus they are no longer the same "medium" lights compared to the brightest parts. How important this might be I do not know. But the best way is still checking what you see with the H-aplha filter.
Edited by Mauro Da Lio (11/30/07 05:06 PM)
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
I would like to see a red-light stimulus that is gradually raised in intensity from a very low level (say mag.24-25) which checks first where the stimulus is first seen (a test of dark adaptation and rod sensitivity) to the point where color is first perceived. Then, the identical test with a green light. If the cited studies are valid, the faint green light would first be seen as red and then turn greenish at some light intensity.
1) The red appears only in context where there are high and medium ligths (the medium lights are reddish). If the stimulus was presented alone it was "grue". 2) I do not exactly know which data from Shaefrer you refer. But if they are those in the paper on limitin magntide as a function of magnification, the large variance is due to the large difference of factors (the data are grouped per diameter and magnfication but include a large interval of environmental conditions). We tested under the same sky same place, same instrument and same magnification and a dozen people have 0.2-0.4 magnitude spread.
Apart from the two points above, the idea of making tests with monochromatic light is interesting. I would like to write to the authors... The test should be carried out alternating lights of different colors (from low lights upwards) in a casual order, say gren red and blue and asking the test person to push one of three buttons to record the perceived color (more or less as the test done in audimetry). I am making a homemade test with a red led flashlight and the SQM. A pure monochromatic light seems easier to detect. So far it seems to me that the numbers I get are in reasonable agreement with the literature (a little better for the monochromatic light but I will tell you).
|
Seattle Brian
sage
   
Reged: 08/03/07
Posts: 272
Loc: Renton, WA
|
|
This is going back to 20-30 years ago, but the M42 that I used to see through my Dad's old 8" Celestron SCT were varying shades of reds and yellows. It was AMAZING. We lived in the Cascade foothills in Washington State. I picked the hobby back up again last year and I was really disappointed with the M42 that I saw from suburban Seattle. Only blue around the Trapezium.
-------------------- Brian
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6787
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
I have never seen colours in nebulas. I also havent look them through BIG telescope. I quess that, because the eye is most sensitive to green or yellow, people who begin to see colours, first see green. I do not believe that it was possible to see the nebulas in natural colour balance through any amateur telescope. I probably have very soon possibility to check my quess with 36" F3.5 folded Newton.
Kaizu
Your best bet to see color is with the brighter portions of the Orion nebula or many of the brightest planetary nebulae. A bluish-green color is often reported with direct vision even in scopes as small as six inches in aperture, although the exact perception will depend on the individual's eyes. Some people don't see faint color all that well, while others are sensitive enough to see it immediately even in some fairly modest apertures. The faint reds mentioned earlier are often very difficult to see, and some rather large telescopes are frequently needed to make them come out with much ease. However, what you see in the eyepiece *is* the natural color of the nebula, and it may or may not represent exactly what is shown in some color photographs. Many of the older color film emulsions had a dip in sensitivity near the Oxygen III wavelengths that give nebulae their bluish-green coloration, so some images of the Orion Nebula are sometimes rather red with very little of the bluish-green color that is seen visually. Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Darenwh
professor emeritus
Reged: 05/11/06
Posts: 655
Loc: Saint Francis, WI
|
|
Personally, I have a very hard time believing that a study in unrealistic conditions, using people who have not learned to see, can accurately measure the limits possible for a person who has developed those skills.
Learning to see is a major part of becoming a skilled observer.
Expecting to know what is possible by studying a large group of people who have not learned to see is like trying to take a group of people who have never touched a basketball and having them try to shoot shots from half court to see if it is possible for a person to make shots from that distance. You don't measure what is possible by taking the average. You measure what is possible by studying the people who are exceptional in that endeaver. Have the same tests done with a large group of skilled observers under conditions that match what is found in nature, and see what the results are. Until then these tests results are questionable at best.
-------------------- Daren
St. Francis, WI
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
Learning to see is a major part of becoming a skilled observer.
"lerning to see" means training you neural network to build more accurate representations of the reality based on sensor data. But with no sensor data, whatever the processing you do, noise cannot be converted to anything correct.
There is no "learning" process that can change the response of cones, the sources of color data.
People who carried out the studies are professional researchers. I think that they cannot be as naive as you proposition suggests.
"lerning to see" means using better and better processing of data, however pushing data elaboration to the limits is definitely known to produce artifacts from noise. Many examples are seen in some exaggerated elaboration of planetary images. Famous is the case of the martian channels.
In case of complex biological or artificial systems which aims at producing high level sensor data fusion (which is the process that produces high level descrition of the reality, like in robotics, and the human brain) one very frequent step is "fitting data" onto models. For example there is a group of neurons (a big group) which is devoted to face detection. How does face detection work? well I do not exactly know which is the actual state of the art in this field, but basically the process is fitting a "model of a face" onto data. If there is little noise and data are consistent (from a real face) the fit is good. But if the data are inconsistent and noisi a fit is still possible. Famous is the devil's face in the smoke: http://www.christianmedia.us/images2/devilface.jpg
Is the face real? NO of course, but vision data are fitted onto a face model and that is the resulting perception. We are all very expert and trained in the task of recognizion faces: too much, to the point that we see faces where there aren't. Color recognition passes similare steps (among which estimation of incident light - say the white balance).
In case there are poor sensor data the "fusion" process still works (that is why the brain try to infer color information from lightness levels). A case that dramatically shows what the fusion process may generate withoud reliable data is the Charles Bonnet syndrome. People literally see very realistic object (especially faces) that do not exist at all. Yet the perceive them as real.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=604
Please look at the links to illusions. There is one where a green square (color percetion 2 illusion 3 and 4) is seen blue or yellow. Yet it is green as any reading of the fundamental RGB values shows. People that arrive at that example know that it is an illusion and accept the fact that they see an incorrect color. But without knowing that, it would be very difficult to convince people that the blue they are seeing is green. They would answer that "everibody can see it is definitely blue!" The point is that one cannot rely on one function (color detection) to prove that the same function works correctly. That is why I ask to chek M42 with a H-alpha filter and detect only if something is seen. This is a proof of detection of H-alpha not based on color recognition functions.
Please, also read the papers before questioning them.
PS in addition there are skilled observers that do not see the colors (in that way). The very fact that there are differences that large is supspect (M27 seen red where should be green and viceversa, large variations of reported colors (green gray blu, or pink, salmon, red - In daylight green is not confused with blue) mismatch in areas that should be colored).
Edited by Mauro Da Lio (12/01/07 05:27 PM)
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
   
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6787
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I have a very hard time believing that a study in unrealistic conditions, using people who have not learned to see, can accurately measure the limits possible for a person who has developed those skills.
Learning to see is a major part of becoming a skilled observer.
Expecting to know what is possible by studying a large group of people who have not learned to see is like trying to take a group of people who have never touched a basketball and having them try to shoot shots from half court to see if it is possible for a person to make shots from that distance. You don't measure what is possible by taking the average. You measure what is possible by studying the people who are exceptional in that endeaver. Have the same tests done with a large group of skilled observers under conditions that match what is found in nature, and see what the results are. Until then these tests results are questionable at best.
While I would tend to agree to some extent, I think that the variable sensitivity of color vision from one person to the next is a large factor in seeing fainter colors like the faint reddish hues in M42. What might be needed to satisfy the gentleman who keeps raising objections to claims using mainly various paper sources is verification done on some of these people, and tests using very faint emission-line or narrow-band light sources of the the intensities and scales similar to that seen with large telescopes. However, from speaking with professionals who have on occasion used *very* large telescopes on objects such as M42, they also report seeing several distinct colors (including reddish hues). At our last club meeting, I was speaking to Dr. Martin Gaskell (McDonald Observatory in Texas), and he related a couple of stories about people who were observing impressive coloration when moving a large observatory scope to target a particular portion of the nebula for study with one of the instruments. I think that there is more than enough evidence that at least some people can indeed see some pinkish or reddish hues in M42 if enough aperture is used. Clear skies to you.
-------------------- David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
Mauro Da Lio
sage
Reged: 09/12/04
Posts: 223
|
|
This is not a post counter the thesis that colors can be seen in nebulae.
This is a post counter some argumentations that have been produced to support (maybe demonstrate) that thesis.
1) Colors are real because reliable observers have seen them. This sentence does not proof anything (the observers migh all be experiencing a systematic effect). It is like saying that some seashells make sounds the proof being that we can hear the sounds. Another example is this: suppose one have a meter which is actually 1.5 meters long. In the effort to show that the meter is exact he might trace two marks onto a pavement at the beginning and end of the fake meter. Then he might use the *same* meter to measure the distance of the two marking, finding that they are exactly one meter apart. I think the two examples clearly show the short circut. The sentence is irrelevant either for the veridicity or falsity of the the origianal thesis.
2) There are large variations between persons, thus color is visible. There are two mistakes here: the correct sentence might be: "there are large variations between persons, thus color *might* be visible". The fact that there are variations does not necessarily mean that they are *large enough* to reach the effect. An example: "some people run faster than others" does not necesarily mean that some people run 100 meters in 0.1 seconds. The premise "there are large variations between persons" although using the adjective "large" in fact does not mean anything: how large? If we do not specify how large the variations might be we cannot say anything about the performance of the best case. How large are the variations between people? Are there data? Yes, there are. It is the responsibility of who makes the sentence to show how large the variations are (with experimental data) and that they are in fact large enough.
3) A scope large enugh will show colors. This sentence may be either false and true. It is too vague. The correct sentence is (a) "a scope large enough will show colors on those regions that are brighter than cones threshold". This sentence is true. Another sentence might be (b) "whichever the brightness of the nebula there is a diameter which makes the image bright enough to stimulate cones". This sentence is false. Surface brightness cannot be amplified. Thus "A scope large enugh will show colors" is a misleading sentence that suggests that both (a) and (b) might be true, whereas only (a) is true and (b) is false.
Edited by Mauro Da Lio (12/01/07 05:56 PM)
|
palsing
member
Reged: 08/11/05
Posts: 95
Loc: Poway, CA
|
|
Quote:
Lots of eye-brain-mind stuff going on here.....
In my 25" I have seen color lots of times, in lots of objects, including the brighter emission and reflection nebula scattered across the sky. I would have bet a lot of money that the colors I saw were real.
However, after seeing several off those illusion examples, I can no longer swear that they were real. I mean, that illusion of the 2 rubic-cubes, for example, I swear that the squares on the left are blue and the squares on the right are yellow, but the mask makes it clear that both are an identicle shade of gray. After this experience, how can I believe anything I see at the eypiece anymore?
Well, if these colors are due to a set of circumstances that trick my brain into believing they are real, or whether I really am seeing these colors, it matters not at all to me; I will continue to enjoy them nonetheless.
I assume that the scope of this thread is limited to seeing colors in bright nebula, correct? I have seen lots of different colors in lots of planetary nebulae, in lots of telescopes, including the 82" at McDonald Observatory in Texas, where several objects were simply kaleidoscopic; words could not describe the colors I saw in NGC 3242, the Ghost of Jupiter.
Real or imagined, seeing colors in nebulae is still a measure of the quality of the instrument and the quality of that particular night's sky.
-------------------- Paul
25" Obsession
5.5" Newt - finder (Cometcatcher)
Hutech 22 X 100 binos w/LPS-P2 filters
Canon 10 X 30 IS binos
|
|
1 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: matt, Olivier Biot
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 9073
|
|
|
|
|
|
|